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

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing Officer under section 154 of the LT of the Act dated

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

154 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Though the said order was served to the assessee on 29.2.2012, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.4.2012. The CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for nearly two years. 16. In the supporting affidavit to the petitions filed for condoning the delay

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

154 Taxman 377/280 ITR 357, held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the Page 5 of 7 expression "sufficient cause" the principle

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condoned. 2.2 The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal. On the ground that there is a considerable delay in filing the appeal even after passing the order under section 154

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay. 16. In rejoinder, the learned AR submitted the case laws relied on by learned Standing Counsel is distinguishable to facts of instant case. It was submitted that in the case of Novodaya Educational Society Vs. DCIT (supra), assessee in that case has neither filed Form 10 electronically or manually before the passing of the intimation under section

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 154, the action of the AO in rejecting the rectification application was to be upheld. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As per CBDT Circular No.7/2018, the Commissioner could condone the delay

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

section 154 of the Act the CO . 6.11 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

CONDONATION OF DELAY BRIEF HISTORY: 1. The appellant is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Society Act, 1997 and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 26.09.2010 vide acknowledgment No. 160182850260910 declaring income at Rs. NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.1,00,73,630/-under section

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay

MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154 of the Act. (iii) Since the appeal has been filed after more than 5 years, reckoned from the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act and since there was no application for condonation in delay