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

condonation application filed by the Appellant erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. 5. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that a lenient view ought to have been taken when major part of the delay was attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic. GROUND ON MERITS

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.24.12.2009. There was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dt.22.5.2012, holding it as non- maintainable on technical grounds, by not condoning

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

234B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report is fatal to the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the condonation

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 11 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal despite the fact that the merits of the matter were covered by the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the Appellant's own case vide Order dated

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

234B of the Act is unsustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above”. 2. The facts of the case are that, AO framed the assessment in this case u/s.143(3) of the Income

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

sections, thereby disputing liability for demand and penalties. 18. On 17th May 2023, the response was given for the aforesaid date stating that the Jurisdiction falls under Income Tax Officer. Ward - 2(1), International Taxation, Bangalore since the Appellant was a Non-Resident. 19. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condoning the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 153A

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B even when the Appellant is not liable for the same. 2,02,4157- Total tax effect (see note below) 2. At the outset, it was observed that there was delay in filing the appeal in ITA No.128/Bang/2023 to the extent of 1553 days. The assessee has explained this delay by way of an affidavit along with petition as follows

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B even when the Appellant is not liable for the same. 2,02,4157- Total tax effect (see note below) 2. At the outset, it was observed that there was delay in filing the appeal in ITA No.128/Bang/2023 to the extent of 1553 days. The assessee has explained this delay by way of an affidavit along with petition as follows

REBECCA POOJA DSOUZA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BENGALURU

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

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["250", "36(1)(va)", "143(1)", "143(1)(iv)", "143(1)(a)", "37", "234A", "234B

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

234B and 234C of the Act. As submitted by the ld. A.R., the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that for claiming foreign tax credit , Form No.67 has to be filed on or before furnishing the return of income. Further, ld. A.R. also submitted that the assessee being an illiterate person in tax rules and related filing procedure

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.

section 80C of the Act, in ITA No.953/B/17 5 computing the net taxable income of the appellant for the impugned Assessment year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in ignoring that the assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.14,40,130/- as unexplained cash deposit

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

condoned the delay by exercising power conferred under section 249(3) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has surrendered the PAN, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

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)

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 in filing the appeal is due to the appellant negligence under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The ld.CIT(A) failed

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

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled