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

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

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 proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

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

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. ShantaramBaburaoPatil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. ShantaramBaburaoPatil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

156 days ITA No. 1056/Bang/2023 2015-16 151 days ITA No. 1057/Bang/2023 2016-17 151 days ITA No. 1058/Bang/2023 2017-18 138 days ITA No. 1059/Bang/2023 2018-19 138 days ITA No. 1060/Bang/2023 2020-21 138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits

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

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

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