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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "263", "144", "156", "143(3)", "10AA

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

condone\ndelay may result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the\nthreshold, causing grave injustice. The Supreme Court further held\nthat the doctrine of “every day's delay must be explained” must be\napplied rationally and not pedantically, and that when substantial\njustice and technical considerations conflict, the cause of substantial\njustice must prevail.\n6. These principles have

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

condone\ndelay may result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the\nthreshold, causing grave injustice. The Supreme Court further held\nthat the doctrine of “every day's delay must be explained” must be\napplied rationally and not pedantically, and that when substantial\njustice and technical considerations conflict, the cause of substantial\njustice must prevail.\n6. These principles have

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

condone\ndelay may result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the\nthreshold, causing grave injustice. The Supreme Court further held\nthat the doctrine of “every day's delay must be explained” must be\napplied rationally and not pedantically, and that when substantial\njustice and technical considerations conflict, the cause of substantial\njustice must prevail.\n6. These principles have

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

156 days in filing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has failed to appreciate that the reasons furnished for delay in filing the appeal constitutes `reasonable cause' and ought to have condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section

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

TARGUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Targus India Pvt. Ltd., No. 74, Prestige Ferozes, The Deputy Sampangi Ramaswamy Commissioner Of Temple Road, Income Tax, Vasanthnagar, Circle – 12(4), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aacct2319J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreeharikutsa, Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-12-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs.2,18,38,566/- As Against The Declared Total Income Of Rs. 6,61,672/-On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

156 days in filing these present appeal before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 2.4 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

AVIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay. 8. The assessee on merit contended it is a trust, engaged in imparting education but not registered under section 12AA or 10(23C) of the Act therefore liable to taxed as an AOP and accordingly was required to file ITR-5 however the consultant inadvertently wrongly filed the ITR- 7 and claimed the deduction

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

delay had already been condoned. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's submission regarding being uneducated and unable to verify e-mails. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["143(3)", "68", "246A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "156

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR vs. M/S THE RAICHUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , RAICHUR

In the result, the assessee's Cross Objections for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay in filing this C.O. before the Tribunal and admit the C.O. for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R Assessee's Cross Objections in 49/Bang/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) 4.1 We will first take up for consideration of the C.O. filed by the assessee, as the technical issue raised therein

ASHOK HADAGALI,HUVINAHADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

delay of 156 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is also condoned. 6.3 We further note that the assessment has been framed ex-parte under section