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.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 8 of 23 explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows

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.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 8 of 23 explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 8 of 23 explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows

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

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 8. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not condonable beyond 120 days by relying upon a two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in N.V. International v. State of Assam and Ors. 2, which

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and ITA Nos.327/Bang/2024 SJS Enterprises Limited, Bangalore Page 14 of 16 Conciliation Act is not condonable beyond 120 days by relying upon a two Judge Bench judgment of this Court

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

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 SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction eligible

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the Page 12 of 14 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the Page 12 of 14 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction

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

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively for these two assessment years. 1.1 There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying

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

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

23-2-2018 [2018 Taxpub (DT) 1507 (Mum-Trib)], wherein 'the 'Bench at para 6 thereof has held that addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made in respect of those assets I monies /'entries which are recorded in the assessee's hooks of account. As regards ITA Nos. 1383 and 1384/'Bang/'201'9, my considered view

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

Condonation of delay if any. The Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to hold that the AO did not have any information except information received from the Investigation Wing. 3. The Ground No.3 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the statement