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

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

SHRI. SUBRAMANYAM VIJAI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

section 143(3) o the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2020-21 demand Rs.1,84,74,696/-. I was searching for the consultancy services for filing appeal and preparing the grounds of appeal. Unfortunately, they were preoccupied in their professional assignments and were not available to render the services. By considering above reason, I pray before your goodself

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

150/- and set off of laws against the taxable income after claiming exemption under section 10A of the Act. 3. The Ld.AO did not agree with the kind of computation and held that the laws carried forward to be set off against the profits before claiming exemption under section 10A. The Ld.AO made adjustment to the returned income and assessed

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

condoning the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal and in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the appellant negligence under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The ld.CIT(A) failed

MANIKARNIKE YADU,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2010-11

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 11.12.2017 assessing total income at Rs.43 lakhs. 3. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. CIT(A) in para 4 has stated that in compliance to the hearing notices and letters, the assessee has uploaded her submissions in the appellate portal

M/S REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-18(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, there is a delay of 2,040 days in filing the appeals. On verification of the learned CIT (Appeals) order, the assessee has filed the information / details for delay in filing the appeal

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

section 154 of the Act dated 22.06.2015 before this Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of appeal as there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal and submitted that appeal shall not be admitted. In this case, the assessee filed appeal against

RNS POWER LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

section 80 AC was invoked and the deduction u/s. 80 IA was denied to the assessee. Those applications stands rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the assessee approached the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 13869/2025 passed an order allowing the petition condoning the delay of 150

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name