SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P(2)(a) Rs.14,76,803 2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/- Total Rs.28,75,375/- 9. The ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by the assessee

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER POF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMTED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeals by the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose while appeal for AY 2013-14 & 2014-

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

delay in filing the appeals is accordingly condoned. 10. As far as the merits of the various issues raised in Appeals relating to AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concerned, the common issue is with regard to treating interest income earned on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The deduction calmed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Assistant No. 4, Batavia Commissioner Chambers, Of Income Tax, Kumara Park Road, Central Circle – Kumara Park East, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr8642N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surya Tejas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.330,33,40,230/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued in response to which representative of assessee filed necessary details

M/S FARICO,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-9(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S. Farico, No.153, Old Madras Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan: Aacfm2217K Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

condonation of delay. 3. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has not disputed the fact that 29th August 2014 was a declared holiday and the subsequent two days were Saturday and Sunday and therefore, the next working day was the 1st September, 2014. In view of the above facts and circumstances explained by the learned AR of the assessee

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

SRI. CHOWDRY,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2016-17

230 days The assessee in the application seeking condonation of a delay in filing the appeal prayed that he (the assessee) is 75-year-old individual, not conversant with emails or other electronic means of e-communication. He (the ld. AR) stated that the order passed under Section