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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\ntendice to the other side will be a relevant

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

149, 151 & 151A of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment notices in all the writ petitions are quashed. It is left open to the respective assessing authorities to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021, after making all compliances, as required by law." (ii). Rajeev Bansal [2023] 147 taxmann.com 549 (Allahabad

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

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\nprejudice to the other side will be a relevant

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

149)-TM, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, it has been observed, vide head-note on page 150 of the Reports (104 ITD) as follows- "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case

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

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\n[Seal] prejudice to the other side will

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\nTendice to the other side will be a relevant

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\nTendice to the other side will be a relevant

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\nTendice to the other side will

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

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

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

149, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and\ninordinate delay, it has been observed, as follows;\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case\nwhere the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\ntendice to the other side will be a relevant

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dropped by the Assessing Officer by pleading that he had voluntarily accepted the additions made for which he had not filed appeals. 3.4.5 In our view, the assessee's averments in the Affidavits for condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT (Appeals) and the submissions filed are merely self serving statements

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

section 80C of the Act, in ITA No.953/B/17 5 computing the net taxable income of the appellant for the impugned Assessment year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in ignoring that the assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.14,40,130/- as unexplained cash deposit

SRI ABDUL KHAYUM,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

149 days may be condoned and the matter may be remitted to the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication on merits. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the conduct of the assessee dos not permit a lenient view. The assessment order in this case was passed under Section

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

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

149, wherein held as follows:-\n\"A distinction must be made between a case where the\ndelay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few\ndays. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of\nprejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor, so the case\ncalls for a more cautious approach, in the latter

SRI.B. SURYA KUMAR vs. ITO,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 154 of the Act dt.14.5.2012 to the CIT (Appeals) for rectification of his orders. The learned CIT(A) by order dt.9.7.2013 dismissed the assessee's application. Subsequent thereto, the assessee filed these appeals before the Tribunal on 4.12.2013. From the averments made in paras 9 & 10 of the petition for condonation of delay we are of the opinion that

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