SHREE NARADAMUNI SWAMY SEVA TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2020-21

section 143(1). Hence the action of the Assessing Officer of CPC is bad in law. 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of the law, the Hon'ble CIT, APPEAL, ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant Trust in limine without condoning the delay of 195

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

AVESTHAGEN LTD. vs. DY DIT,

In the result, both these appeals are

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

Section 201(1) and the demand of interest u/s 201(1A) was filed within time. 5. Since the appeal is filed only in pursuant of the directions of the Hon'ble tribunal, the appeallant pray that the delay, if any, in filing of this appeal petition may pleased to be condoned and heard along with Appeal No: ITA No 972/B/10

M/S. EL MEASURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

condoned delay in filing of present appeal. 5.2 The only issue raised before us, is in respect of disallowance made under section 40(A)(ia) of the Act. It has been submitted that sum of Rs.10,64,075/- was paid exhibition charges to two nonresidents for event held outside India in South Africa and UAE. Ld.AR submitted that, payments were

M/S. THE FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,GADAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

195 days has occurred and appellant submits the delay is unintentional and for the bonafide reasons stated above. 4. Appellant humbly submits that, Appellant has good case on merits and the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional for the bona fide reasons and for the reasons which were beyond appellant's control. We humbly pray this Hon'ble tribunal

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

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 253 of the Act the Petitioner / Appellant ought to have ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 8 of 13 filed the statutory appeal against the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax [Appeals], within 60 days from the date of receipt i.e. 23/03/2024 of the said order i.e. on or before 22/05/2024

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 253 of the Act the Petitioner / Appellant ought to have ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 8 of 13 filed the statutory appeal against the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax [Appeals], within 60 days from the date of receipt i.e. 23/03/2024 of the said order i.e. on or before 22/05/2024

KUNIGAL THIBBAIAH SRINIVASA,KUNIGAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , TUMAKURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Vs. Ito, Behind Shanthamma Temple, Ward – 2, Mahaveera Nagar, Tumkur Road, Tumakuru. Kunigal – 572 130. Pan : Ennps 4678 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.10.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 81 Days In Filing This Appeal. In An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, It Has Been Stated That The First Appellate Authority Passed An Ex-Parte Order Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Not Educated. He Is Residing In Mofussil Areas I.E., Kunigal & Is Not Aware Of The Intricacies Of E-Tax Proceedings. He Therefore Did Not Respond To Notice Issued Nor Instructed His Tax Practitioner. The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The First Appellate Authority & Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Notice For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand On 21.11.2022. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Page 2 Of 6

195 and CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. The crux of the ratio laid down in these decisions is to the effect that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive justice, especially in tax proceedings and when there is no willful neglect on the part of the party seeking

THIMMIAH NARAYANAPPA MURALIDHAR ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. Ito, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. Pan : Bqkpm 0728 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024

section 143(3) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, there was delay in filing this appeal. Assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay which reads as follows: “The order was served on the appellant on 10.12.2019. The Income Tax Laws (ITL) require the appeal documents to be filed before

TIRUMALARAO P MOKASHI,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the delay and admit the appeal. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alisa Ram Nath Sahu and others vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others in (2002) 3 Supreme court cases 195 in civil appeal No.1704 of 2992 dated 27th February 2002 and submitted that

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mysore Race Club Ltd., derives income from organizing races, filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.4,41,27,350/-. Later on the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mysore Race Club Ltd., derives income from organizing races, filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.4,41,27,350/-. Later on the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section

M/S. DESAI AND COMPANY ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Desai & Company, Vs. Acit, No.1, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, Circle – 1(1), Hubballi – 560 031. Hubballi. Pan : Aaafd 9759 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parthivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2024

section 246A of the Act. Accordingly, the delay of 62 days in Page 3 of 4 filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. In taking the above view, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements:  Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served