K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

139(4) filed on\n31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3)\nr.w.s. 153D of the act.\n3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment\norders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with\ndelay as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder passed\nby AO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

section in respect of furnishing of return of income. The assessee in the present case has filed a belated return u/s 139 (4) of the Act, which the department has also not held it to be a defective return u/s 139(9) of the Act. 9.6 Further, with regard to delay in filing the form 10B for the years prior

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

9. Hon supreme court as relied by the ld DR in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L. Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), reported in MANU/SC/0285/2024 : 2024:INSC:286, summarized the principles governing the exceptions imagined under "sufficient cause" vis-à-vis substantive justice as under:- Page 3 of 19 "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

9. Hon supreme court as relied by the ld DR in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L. Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), reported in MANU/SC/0285/2024 : 2024:INSC:286, summarized the principles governing the exceptions imagined under "sufficient cause" vis-à-vis substantive justice as under:- Page 3 of 19 "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

9. The lower authorities have erred in disallowing the claim of\nexemption under section 11 while processing the return under section\n143(1) of the Act without appreciating that the adjustments u/s 143(1) are\nonly restricted to arithmetical errors and incorrect claims and there is\nno power to deny exemption u/s 11 for delay in filing audit report while

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

9 of 18\ndocuments/annexures have not been filed yet. The AR assured that medical\ndocuments will be filed on the same day, yet failed to do so. Thus, the claim of\nthe appellant that due to medical reasons, there has been a delay in filing of appeal\nis not acceptable.\n5.5.1\nFurther, the appellant even after filing of appeal with

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

9 of 18\nITA Nos.1355, 2264/B/2024 etc.\n\ndocuments/annexures have not been filed yet. The AR assured that medical\ndocuments will be filed on the same day, yet failed to do so. Thus, the claim of\nthe appellant that due to medical reasons, there has been a delay in filing of appeal\nis not acceptable.\n\n5.5.1 Further, the appellant

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

9 of 18\nITA Nos.1355, 2264/B/2024 etc.\n5.7 Moreover, the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay does not\nexplain day to day delay. It was incumbent upon the appellant to exhibit due\ndiligence by detailing the reasons for day to day delay. Nonetheless, in this\ninstance, the appellant has filed appeal with an average delay of 459 days

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 248 days deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. 6. The issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80P of the Act. . Page 4 of 9 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

139(1) on 04.04.2014 declaring gross total income of Rs.8,83,217. A search was conducted on 09.05.2018 in the Page 2 of 7 case of T. Suresh, Bangalore in connection with search proceedings in the group case of T. Suresh and Others. Notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 31.08.2021 and assessee filed return of income

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in filing of the return of income, the Central Processing Centre is correct in not allowing the Assessee the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as return of income is not filed within due date. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

139(1) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the appellant being a trust registered under section 12A of the Act, is entitled for all the benefit as envisaged under the provisions of section

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

delay in filing the audit report in form 10 CCB, the requirement of filing the audit report being not a mandatory but a directory requirement u/ s 801A(7) of the Act is to be condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 139(9) of the Act is as under:- “139(9) Where the Assessing Officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 139(9) of the Act is as under:- “139(9) Where the Assessing Officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 139(9) of the Act is as under:- “139(9) Where the Assessing Officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of fifteen days from the date of such intimation or within such further

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

9) of 139 of the Act would show that if a return filed\nby an assessee is defective, then the AO has to intimate the assessee about\nsuch defect and in case an assessee would fail to remove the defect so pointed\nout then such return would be treated as invalid return. However, in the case at\nhand, perusal