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

2 of his order due to health issue and assessee is 64 years old. In response to notices, the assessee responded discussing the facts of the case. As per ld. FAA, the assessee was unable to justify the inordinate delay of 85 days with sufficient cause and accordingly he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal

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

2) cannot be denied merely because the form was filed after the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(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

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 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

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return of Income filed

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being a registered Private Limited Company, engaged inthe manufacturing and supply of superior qualityof Aluminium Extrusion and M/s. GTR Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 16 Aluminium Alloy Ingots. The assesseefiled its return of income

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. 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

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

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

2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru, is not justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration of the appellant Trust under section 80G of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru, is not justified in holding that appellant

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

2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru, is not justified in mechanically rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration of the appellant Trust under section 80G of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [Exemptions], Bengaluru, is not justified in holding that appellant

SHREE RAMA KESHAVDAS PAI ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 2(14)(iii) , that the Appellant is legally entitled and claimed the exemption, the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by National Highway Authority. 7. The Article 265 of the constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by the authority of law. Hence only legitimate tax can be recovered and even

RAMA KESHAVDAS PAI ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 2(14)(iii) , that the Appellant is legally entitled and claimed the exemption, the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by National Highway Authority. 7. The Article 265 of the constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by the authority of law. Hence only legitimate tax can be recovered and even

SHREE RAMA KESHAVADAS PAI,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 2(14)(iii) , that the Appellant is legally entitled and claimed the exemption, the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by National Highway Authority. 7. The Article 265 of the constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by the authority of law. Hence only legitimate tax can be recovered and even