THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will be decided only

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will be decided only

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will be decided only

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1-4-2021, were issued under the unamended section 148, due to bona fide mistake in view of the subsequent extension of time by various notifications under the Enabling Act (TOLA, 2020). (II) The notices ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section 148 and 142(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter \"the Act\") were issued during the period\nMarch 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and\nwere sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which\ndid not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices were not\nsent to the secondary

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section 148 and 142(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter \"the Act\") were issued during the period\nMarch 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and\nwere sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which\ndid not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices were not\nsent to the secondary

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

Condonation of delay if any. The Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to hold that the AO did not have any information except information received from the Investigation Wing. 3. The Ground No.3 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the statement

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively for these two assessment years. 1.1 There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

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

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

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 u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.O. and admit the C.O. for adjudication. 7.0 The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C.O. are taken up together for disposal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative contended

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

condoned the delay happened in filing of ROI and\nhas not treated the ROI as an invalid ROI. Therefore, the arguments of learned\nDR would be of no help to the Department.\n18. We would also like to quote here the recent decision of the Hon'ble Patna\nHigh Court in the case of CIT Vs Nagendra Parasad 156 Taxman.19