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

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

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 147 to 151

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are\nallowed

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A

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

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)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after