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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

SRI ABDUL KHAYUM,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

condonation of delay and submitted that the conduct of the assessee dos not permit a lenient view. The assessment order in this case was passed under Section 144 as the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and therefore when an exparte assessment was passed the assessee was expected to be more vigilant and disciplined in filing the appeal

TRITON VALVES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 7. On merits of the case, the ld. counsel for the assessee’s submission was that the opening stock, purchases as well as sales have to be valued on the same basis as the closing stock is valued in the inclusive method of accounting. For this purpose, he relied on the following case

WALVOIL FLUID POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING - 2(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Sri Pavankumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1620/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Kiadb, Transfer Pricing 2(2)(2), Attibele Indl. Area, Attibele, Anekal Bangalore. Taluk, Bangalore-562107 Pan: Aaacw 5954E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of control valves and filed the Return of Income on 29.09.2009 with total income of (-) Rs.7,36,89,967. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued

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.

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 the above table that the delay in filing of appeals is not a matter of few days or months, but the delay

TARGUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Targus India Pvt. Ltd., No. 74, Prestige Ferozes, The Deputy Sampangi Ramaswamy Commissioner Of Temple Road, Income Tax, Vasanthnagar, Circle – 12(4), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aacct2319J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreeharikutsa, Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-12-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2009-10 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 Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs.2,18,38,566/- As Against The Declared Total Income Of Rs. 6,61,672/-On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

245/- in respect of the management fees on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 36,65,932/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the management fee as well as foreign exchange loss

SHRI. SOMASHEKAR VENKATASWAMAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

condone the delay of 46 days by the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly admit the assessee’s appeal for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee, an individual in business as a contractor, filed his return for Assessment Year

MNS PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Mns Printers Pvt. Ltd., No.345/4, Old Madras Road, Bhattarahalli, Bangalore-560049. … Appellant Pan:Aabcm 9873 F Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

245)(Kar), on identical facts, held that the delay cannot be condoned as ignorance of law is not an excuse and the assessee had not revealed source of ill-advice given. The Hon’ble High Court held in parat.7 to tell as follows: “7. This is not a case wherein the appellant is an illiterate person, who may not know

SHRI. PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA PRABHU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranshri Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu, No.308, 7Th Main, Hal #Rd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 075. Pan No.Aajpp5078N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore Respondent

section 154 before the assessing authority on 22.3.2017. Thereafter, the appellant has chosen to fie the present appeal on 25.3.2017. Accordingly, it is claimed that there is delay of 34 days in fling this appeal. I have examined the chronology. 8. The appellant must have filed the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the intimation dated 20.3.2009. Even

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 6. The facts of the case are that there was outstanding liability of Rs.62,75,770/- and out of this, Rs.42,24,604/- is relating to services tax. The assessee suo moto disallowed a sum of rs.11,99,996/- as per provisions of sec.43B of the Income