SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

220/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause and the delay ought to have been condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.953/B/17 4 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

220 days before this Tribunal cannot be condoned. The assessee is a Co-operative Society associated by Advocates 8s Chartered Accountants and ignorance of law is no excuse. 3.2 In this regard, I may refer the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Government

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

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

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 proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

220/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.a) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal and in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 | 244 | 2016-17 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | 2017-18 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 244 2016-17 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2017-18 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 244 2016-17 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2017-18 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 244 2016-17 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2017-18 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 | 244 | | 2016-17 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | | 2017-18 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | | 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | | 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

220 | 244 | | 2016-17 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | | 2017-18 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 | | 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | | 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Si. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

220 244 2016-17 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2017-18 27-10-2021 29-01-2023 459 215 244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column

M/S DYNASCAN INSPECTION SYSTEMS COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

delay, with liberty to condone. 5.2 As regards applicability of section 200 A read with section 220 (2) of the Act, is concerned

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

SREE VENKATESHWARA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

220 wherein it was held that even in the absence of an express provision, notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided where an order entails adverse civil consequences. . Page 5 of 8 12. Additionally, the ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, especially as the delay was explained by an affidavit. The Commissioner