INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

delayed and in\nsuch circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as\nhas been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra).\n4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is\nwhether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax\nAct?\n5. Admittedly, the notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 253(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I do affirm that whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 5. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for the belated filing of the Cross Objection. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

2[1], Bangalore and consequently, the learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that Section 129 of the Act is not applicable to the factual matrix on hand. Further, ld. A.R. submitted that section 292BB of the Act does not give the power to condone the failure or delay in issuing the notice u/s 143

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

143(1) of the\nPage 37 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n2\n[2017] 87\nТахтапn.Com 244\n(Karnataka)\nact.\nSharavathy\nConductors (P.)\nLtd.\nV.\nChief\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax,\nBengaluru-2*\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\n3\n[2023] 155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note\nwhich reads below Section\n14A of the Income

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

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

2) of the Act and framing the\nassessment under section 144 of the Act.\n14. The above arguments of learned DR look attractive. However, the\narguments failed when examined on the touch stone of admitted facts of the\npresent case. Perusal of Para 10 of Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 and\nPara 6 of Assessment order

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

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious\nmatter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of\njustice being defeated. As against this, when delay is\ncondoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause\nwould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean

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

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

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious\nmatter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of\njustice being defeated. As against this, when delay is\ncondoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause\nwould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

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

2) of the Act and framing the\nassessment under section 144 of the Act.\n14.\nThe above arguments of learned DR look attractive. However, the\narguments failed when examined on the touch stone of admitted facts of the\npresent case. Perusal of Para 10 of Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 and\nPara 6 of Assessment order

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

2)(b)", "Section 143(1)", "Section 250", "Section 10B", "Section 139(1)", "Section 139(5)", "Section 234A", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report is fatal to the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the condonation

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143

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

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

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

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. 2. Whether the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments is eligible for deduction under Section

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC ("Ld. DCIT, CPC") grossly erred by disallowing an amount of INR 24,54,650 in respect of expense

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

143(2) was issued even after the delay in filing of return was condoned. 3.6 A reference was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - Transfer Pricing ('TP') - 2(1)(2), Bengaluru ("Transfer Pricing Office / TPO") for determination of Arm's Length Price under section