NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

220 and passed order on 27.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 20.06.2022 and in Form 35 date of service of order/notice of demand was mentioned as 28.03.2022 and challan was paid on 19.04.2022. The ld. FAA observed that there was a delay of 85 days in filing appeal

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

220 | 244 |\n| 2016-17 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2017-18 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n| 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

220 | 244 |\n| 2016-17 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2017-18 | 27-10-2021 | 29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n| 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that

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

220 days before this Tribunal cannot be condoned. The\nassessee is a Co-operative Society associated by Advocates 8s\nChartered Accountants and ignorance of law is no excuse.\n3.2 In this regard, I may refer the judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.\nThe 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

220/-. 7. The intimation, being riddled with mistakes, is bad in law and liable to be quashed in its entirety. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition against the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

220/-. 7. The intimation, being riddled with mistakes, is bad in law and liable to be quashed in its entirety. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition against the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

220/-. 7. The intimation, being riddled with mistakes, is bad in law and liable to be quashed in its entirety. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition against the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred