THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

15 of 23 even a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might make that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may justifiably seek condonation of delay. In any case, the assessee, in the case before us, has not proved that the assessee had indeed received wrong advice by Counsel or its counsel

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

15 of 23 even a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might make that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may justifiably seek condonation of delay. In any case, the assessee, in the case before us, has not proved that the assessee had indeed received wrong advice by Counsel or its counsel

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

15 of 23 even a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might make that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may justifiably seek condonation of delay. In any case, the assessee, in the case before us, has not proved that the assessee had indeed received wrong advice by Counsel or its counsel

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. As far as the merits of the case of the assesee is concerned, the ld counsel or the assessee submitted that ground 4 if adjudicated will render the adjudication of other grounds as academic and prayed for adjudication of ground No.4 which reads as follows:- “4. Ground on applicability of proviso

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of\nthe L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of\nsubstantial cause of justice.\n8.\nIt is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the\nappeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of\nthe L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of\nsubstantial cause of justice.\n8. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the\nappeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. 4.9 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows: 4.9.1 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties with reference to the merits of the additional ground. The relevant portion of Section 12A of the Act is as follows:- "Section 12A - (1) Conditions as to registration of trusts, etc.- The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2 SCR 762, observed as\nunder:\n“In construing s.5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The\nfirst consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for\nmaking an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the\ndecree as binding between the parties. In other words

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

15 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\neven a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might\nmake that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may\njustifiably seek condonation of delay. In any case, the assessee, in\nthe case before us, has not proved that the assessee

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

15 of 79 3.4 I also place reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds (P.) Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 288/Coch/2017 dated 25/06/2018 wherein this Tribunal condoned the delay of 2819 days. Insofar as the reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing