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

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

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 any documentary evidence/information to prove

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

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

2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n5.1 noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of Covid Pandemic

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,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nane solusion provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view

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

2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n[NOTARY seal has been scanned]\n\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nof the provision provided

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the extent which is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

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

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

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), 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

SHRI. K.SURYA NARAYANA RAJU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

2 of page 5 ITA No.323/Bang/2023 default on the part of the authorized representative who had not only not informed me about the said proceedings but had also neglected to submit the details / clarifications sought for by the learned assessing officer within the time stipulated by him leading to the framing of the assessment order dated 12.12.2017 under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

220 days for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay and affidavit stating that the CIT(Appeals) granted part relief of a sum of Rs.74,37,353 with respect to addition made u/s. 69A and a sum of Rs.10.29,717 on the re-estimation of sales of the assessee. The assessee was advised that assessee could

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay in filing these appeals and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. 3. The following grounds are raised by the assessee. “1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act dated, 31-12-2018 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law and therefore, the same is liable

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay in filing these appeals and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. 3. The following grounds are raised by the assessee. “1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act dated, 31-12-2018 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law and therefore, the same is liable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal