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.

15. On August 24, 2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied in respect of a portion of the order, the petitioner had filed an application under section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

15. On August 24, 2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied in respect of a portion of the order, the petitioner had filed an application under section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March

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.

15. On August 24, 2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied in respect of a portion of the order, the petitioner had filed an application under section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

15 of 79 3.4 I also place reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds (P.) Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 288/Coch/2017 dated 25/06/2018 wherein this Tribunal condoned the delay of 2819 days. Insofar as the reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of\nthe L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of\nsubstantial cause of justice.\n8.\nIt is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the\nappeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of\nthe L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of\nsubstantial cause of justice.\n8. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the\nappeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

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

15. On August 24, 2005, assessment order was passed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied in respect of a portion of the order, the petitioner had filed an application under section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay of 102 days in both the appeals are condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay of 102 days in both the appeals are condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income

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

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

1 . 24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since

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

15 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\neven a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might\nmake that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may\njustifiably seek condonation of delay. In any case, the assessee, in\nthe case before us, has not proved that the assessee

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

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

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1)\nas erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is\nperverse.\"\nA full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda\nvs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question\nwhere the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was\ndeclined, held as under

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

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing