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

condonation of delay in filing Form 10. A copy of Page 5 of 18 resolution passed by The Board of Trustees, authorising setting aside of an amount of Rs 6,99,58,902 for purpose of expansion and renovation of the trust buildings, was filed before the CIT(Appeals). 12. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon Rajasthan

AVIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

208/- and in consequence a demand of Rs. 31,30,250/- was raised. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A on 27-01-2022 which was delayed by 1009 days. 7. The assessee in the delay condonation application contended that the delay in filing of appeal arises due to change in consultant which resulted

VANAJAKSHI CHIKKAPPAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(7), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961(in short “The Act”) for the AY 2017- 18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Vanajakshi Chikkappaiah, Bangalore Page 2 of 23 2. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal

MAROOFALI I SHAIKH ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order passed by the authorities below insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SHRI. SRINIVASAN SATHIYAMOORTHY ,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

208 262 6565” Similar petition for AY 2016-17 is also filed by the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee. It was stated that the delay was due to the fact that the assessee is a non-resident employed in London and residing there since 2019. The assessee entrusted

SHRI. SRINIVASAN SATHIYAMOORTHY ,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

208 262 6565” Similar petition for AY 2016-17 is also filed by the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee. It was stated that the delay was due to the fact that the assessee is a non-resident employed in London and residing there since 2019. The assessee entrusted

M/S. TIRUMALA TELEWORLD ,HUBBALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

delay of 191 days in filing the instant appeal, for which the Assessee has submitted as under: “3. I submit that the Impugned Order likely to be received on unassessed email on 31-5-2023. That I am least acquainted with tax matters and books of accounts and totally depend upon account clerk. The regular books of accounts were maintained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

208/- . Being aggrieved by the said order under section 143(3) read with section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation

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

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

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE vs. M/S CENTRE FPR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR PLATFORMS , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

MR. MUPPURI DAMODAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Before us the learned A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of s. 249(4) of the Act,. The ld. CIT(A) on the other hand

SAMRUDDI MAHILA SOUHARADA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH,CHIKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Samruddi Mahila Souharada Pathina Vs. Ito, Sahakari Niyamith, Ward – 1, Vasavi Temple Road, Gowribidanur Town Chikaballapur. & Po, Gowrididanur Tq, Chikaballapur – 561 208, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 3610 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

208, Karnataka. PAN : AAJAS 3610 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapthy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 04.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated