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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

160/- for A.Y. 2015-16. 3.2 Subsequently, on verification of the balance sheet by the Ld.AO, it was noticed that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 72,20,000/- towards Church maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that

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

160/- for A.Y. 2015-16. 3.2 Subsequently, on verification of the balance sheet by the Ld.AO, it was noticed that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 72,20,000/- towards Church maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

condone the delay\nand admit the appeal for adjudication.\n7.\nBrief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Partnership\nFirm and has filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17\ndeclaring total income at Rs.34,75,810/-\non 16.10.2016.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the\nassessment was completed

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which under the facts ITA Nos. 2795 to 2797/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 and circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend and delete anyof the above grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which under the facts ITA Nos. 2795 to 2797/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 and circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend and delete anyof the above grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which under the facts ITA Nos. 2795 to 2797/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 and circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend and delete anyof the above grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other

MOGALI SRIKANTH BHARATHI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. S

section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 73 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Assessees have filed application for condonation of delay along ITA Nos.1686 to 1689/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 with affidavit stating therein the reasons for the belated filing

MOGALI SRIKANTH BHARATHI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. S

section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 73 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Assessees have filed application for condonation of delay along ITA Nos.1686 to 1689/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 with affidavit stating therein the reasons for the belated filing

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA MAILANAYAKANAHALLI,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

160. PAN : AADAP 1973 F Assessee by : Shri. Arvind S, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President The impugned orders of the CIT(A) in both these appeals are of CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, dated 22.09.2020 and 24.08.2020 respectively

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

MANJUNATH SEENAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

section 271E of the Act was not received by him. Consequently, the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) occurred. 3. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a non- qualified person working as a driver. Due to personal difficulties, he had to change his address. However, the order was delivered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. M/S. MANASA MEDICALS, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of selling pharmaceutical products. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 23.9.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,70,210. The case was selected for scrutiny for the purpose of verification of “large value of cash deposits during demonetisation