AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay be condoned and the Appeal be heard on its merits. 16. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 under review, the Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, submitted a paper book comprising twenty-three pages. Reference was made to the first page, containing a letter dated 10.12.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar, addressed to the Secretary

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

198) 167 ITR 471. ITA Nos.1044, 1045/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 16 8. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) has without considering the explanations filed by the assessee for delay in filing appeal before him he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) has observed that the appeal filed by the assessee was 410 days which

M/S AUTOLIV INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

Section 143(3). 7. When the order was received we approached our legal counsels who suggested we file an appeal against the order ' u/s 143(3) even if it was belated while praying for a condonation of delay. 8. The deponent humbly submits that due to the continuous restructuring of the appellant company from 2008 to 2010 and shifting

C S MANJUNATH,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WAR-1 & TPS, TUMKUR, TUMKUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned.\n10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of\nCheckmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any\ndelay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an\nemployer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such\ncontribution. Further

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 286 days. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Honourable Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) Hubli has erred both on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That the order under section

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

198) 167 ITR 471 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 3. Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 Supreme Court cases 733. 4. We have heard submission of the ld counsel for the assessee. Keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions that interest

SRI MURALI L,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 14(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Two issues are raised in this appeal – (i) addition in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.5,62,854; and (ii) addition in respect of unexplained credit of Rs.4,46,086. We shall adjudicate the above issues as under: Addition of Rs.5

SHRI. K.SURYA NARAYANA RAJU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 144 of the income tax act. 5. That being aggrieved of the said order, I had filed an appeal before the -learned CIT (A) Bangalore - 06 on 12th Jan 2018 which was subsequently migrated to the NFAC. However, here again, due to my bad luck the appeal went unrepresented before Learned CIT (A) resulting in the learned

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

198) 167 ITR 471 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 Page 3 of 21 3. Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 Supreme Court cases 733. 5. We have heard submission of the ld counsel for the assessee and are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal