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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the average delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal is of more than 1.2 years. It is apparent from

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the average delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal is of more than 1.2 years. It is apparent from

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

244 | | 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | | 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the average delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal is of more than 1.2 years. It is apparent from

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

244 | | 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | | 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 | 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the average delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal is of more than 1.2 years. It is apparent from

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

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

244, 1st Floor, Fortune Summit Circle 1(1)(1), Business Park, HSR 6th Sector, Bangalore. Near Silk Board, Bommanahalli S.O. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN: AAFCB 7948C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

244, 1st Floor, Fortune Summit Circle 1(1)(1), Business Park, HSR 6th Sector, Bangalore. Near Silk Board, Bommanahalli S.O. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN: AAFCB 7948C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Si. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

244 2018-19 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023 460 215 245 5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the average delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal is of more than 1.2 years. It is apparent from

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

condone the delay and consider the appeal for adjudication. Page 5 of 20 Valuation of shares 8. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has received share premium on allotment of shares to the tune of Rs.33,71,77,500 and called for the details of the same. The assessee submitted the break

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Facts apropos are that the assessee a salaried individual had filed his return of income for the assessment year : 2009-10 declaring an income of Rs.2,98,718/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had sold a property bearing plot no.506, situated at Hosur Sarjapur

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 RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.754/Bang/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15, Order dated 05.12.2023, wherein the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on 31.12.2017 and the Hon’ble Tribunal haaaaas

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

244 (Calcutta) has observed in para 18 of the order which reads as under :- “18. Dr. Pal's client approached the Tribunal challenging the order passed under section 263 and even did not pray for any interim relief for stay of operation of the said order and allowed the order of assessment to be passed. Ultimately an appeal was also

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

condonation of delay in filing C.O. In terms of Sec.253(4) of the Act, a C.O. has to be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice in an appeal. The Assessee has received notice of appeal on 25.2.2015 and has filed cross objection on 20.3.2015. The Cross-objection is therefore filed within time. 21. Ground No.1

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment