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 of the Act dated

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 21.06.2021. As per the said provisions of section 246A of the Act the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the appeal

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

7 “ 41. In the present case, the inordinate delay of approximately more than 1100 days calls for a strict approach and the principles or guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the above- said decision on the conduct that cannot be favourably considered are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The further guidelines issued in paragraph

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

7 of 20th Dec 2018, the CBDT directed Commissioners of Income Tax to consider condonation of delays in filing Form 10 for assessment year 2016-17. These directions were subsequently amended vide Circular No 10 of 2019, dated 22nd May 2019, whereby Commissioners of Income Tax were directed to consider condonation of delay for assessment years preceding assessment year

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

condonation of delay there is no loss to revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone would be collected. In the case on hand, we find as per the facts narrated, that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) 7 was mainly due to the assessee pursuing rectification proceedings under section

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, regardless of its length. In this case, the Revenue has not filed an affidavit opposing the condonation of delay. This itself is sufficient reason to condone the delay

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

section 249(3) of the Act and it is requested before your Honours to take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 3,742 days in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.” 7. In the said application, the assessee had narrated the circumstances

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

7. The Learned CIT(A) and learned AO have erred in taxing the corpus donation of Rs 1,86,000/-, which is contrary to provisions of Law. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234A and 234B is not leviable, being consequential in nature. 12. Assessee has also raised application dated

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

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

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

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

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

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

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

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

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

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above

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

condonation in delay in the appeal, the appeal itself is not maintainable. (iv) Since there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been shown by the assessee, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 8. For the above