GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are\nallowed

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

164 taxman.com 83(Kol) dated 12.06.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench has not condoned the delay of 291 days, the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - A perusal of the affidavit (supra) gives an impression that the management of the said Society were engrossed in carrying out activities of the said Society and thus, could not find the time to file

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

164 taxman.com 83(Kol) dated 12.06.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench has not condoned the delay of 291 days, the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - A perusal of the affidavit (supra) gives an impression that the management of the said Society were engrossed in carrying out activities of the said Society and thus, could not find the time to file

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

164 taxmann.com 283 (Bang. Trib.). 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessment was completed u/s. 153C of the act pursuant to search u/s. 132 and therefore assessee must have been aware of the income tax proceedings and filed appeal within time. During the appellate proceedings before the FAA the assessee

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

1)". 13. The appellant also drew attention of the CIT(Appeals) to CBDT Circular No 10 of 2019 [F.No 197/ 55/ 2018-ITA-I] dated 22.5.2019, wherein Commissioners of Income Tax have been directed to condone delay in filing Form 10 for charitable and religious trusts for years prior to assessment year 2018-19. 14. The appellant also raised

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation application vide order dated 04/01/2024. 4.2 Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that the surplus of Rs.76,29,084/- was inadvertently claimed as deduction under the amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act instead

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1-4-2021, were issued under the unamended section 148, due to bona fide mistake in view of the subsequent extension of time by various notifications under the Enabling Act (TOLA, 2020). (II) The notices ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

condone the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before us and admit for adjudication. Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 4 of 10 6. Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal reads as follows: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the impugned Penalty Order though

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

1. The order of rejection for approval under section 80G of the Act passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru dated 23/03/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALAURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

1. The order of rejection for approval under section 80G of the Act passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru dated 23/03/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

condoning the delay of 1504 days in filing the appeal. Consequently the CIT(A) has upheld the additions made in the assessment order dated 09.12.2018 passed by the ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1), Bengaluru under section 143 of the Act. It is submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that major portion of the delay i.e. 1304 days

SHRI. SOMASHEKAR VENKATASWAMAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

condone the delay of 46 days by the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly admit the assessee’s appeal for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee, an individual in business as a contractor, filed his return for Assessment Year

VENKATARAMANAPPA SUMA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKABALLAPUR

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

1) for the assessment year 2018-19.\n2. In the present case, there was a delay in filing the appeal before\nthe Id. CIT(A) for 541 days. The assessee regarding the delay submitted\nas under:-\na) She was shifted her place from Banshankari, Bangalore to\nMallasandra, Bagepalli and therefore, the assessment order was\nnot received

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned the delay of 13 days caused by assessee in filing present appeals. 5. Ld.AR submitted that, for all years under consideration, identical Additional Ground Nos:12-13 are raised by assessee, being legal issue, challenging validity of order passed under section 263. For sake of convenience we are reproducing additional ground No. 12-13 from assessment year

M/S. SARVADEIVATHA EDUCATION TRUST(REGD),KODAGU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD, MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. Page 7 of 9 8. On merits, we note that there are ample decisions of this Tribunal, wherein it is observed