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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

139(4) filed on 31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the act. 3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with delay as under: AY Date of order passed by AO Date of service as per Form 35 Date of filing Whether appeal

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condoned is 139 days as for the balance 90 days from 20/03/2020 to 17/06/2020 there is no delay considering the provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. We will therefore consider whether the bona fide belief of the assessee, that the employee contribution

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.11,78,481 being PF & ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. It was Page 9

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9. Hon'ble supreme court recently in Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1104 Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. (12.09.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1262/2025 has held that :- "123. From above, it is manifest that that the phrase "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without

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. 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 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

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

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type