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.

24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under 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 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.

24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under 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 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.

24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under 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

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

24, 2011. The\ncited decision in the case of Dr. Sujatha (supra) was within the time limit in terms\nof circular dated June 9, 2015. As regards Dr. Sudha's case is concerned, matter\nrelates to refund of tax deducted at source. In view of these facts and circumstances\nand preceding analysis, the writ petition stands dismissed.”\n(vi)\nHon

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

24, 2011. The\ncited decision in the case of Dr. Sujatha (supra) was within the time limit in terms\nof circular dated June 9, 2015. As regards Dr. Sudha's case is concerned, matter\nrelates to refund of tax deducted at source. In view of these facts and circumstances\nand preceding analysis, the writ petition stands dismissed.”\n(vi)\nHon

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

24, 2011. The\ncited decision in the case of Dr. Sujatha (supra) was within the time limit in terms\nof circular dated June 9, 2015. As regards Dr. Sudha's case is concerned, matter\nrelates to refund of tax deducted at source. In view of these facts and circumstances\nand preceding analysis, the writ petition stands dismissed.”\n(vi)\nHon

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

24. 11. 2022 11.11.2022 Filed condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

delay in filing the appeal which the CIT(A) did not condone. 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 7. The learned Departmental

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.11,78,481 being PF & ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. It was Page

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

x] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Co-Ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha, in ITA No's 281 to 285/Bang/2014, order dated 14/08/2015, wherein, in that case the assessee did not had registration under section 12AA of the Act for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, and the assessee in that case

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

X containing the provisions relating to the computation of income from international transactions having regard to the ALP was inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. On such insertion, it became incumbent upon the AO to determine the ALP of the international transactions. For the A.Y. 2002-03, the time limit for completion of assessment, after determining

SRI. MANIKANDAN VAZHUKKAPAR KUMARAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

section 2(24)(x) of the Act is to be treated as held in trust by such employer. 9.1 He placed emphasis of para 30 to 34 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) in support of his contention, wherein the distinction between employer’s contribution and the liability to deposit the amount retained in case of employees