THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical

M/S. SHIRLAL MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BETHANGADY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

section 80AC of the Act which are applicable for assessment year 2018-19 and onwards, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 80P of the Act. However, there is no dispute that Principal CIT Goa vide order dated 7.2.2021 issued order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act on 19.2.2021 condoning the delay of filing the return

KALPESH KUMAR RAMANLAL SHAH,DAVANGERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

246 days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section

M/S SOLITAIRE BUILD TECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), O/O ADDITIONAL CIT RANGE-6 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Solitaire Build Tech Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Osd), No.349, 25Th Cross, 9Th Main, O/O Additional Cit, R-6, Bsk Ii Stage, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 070. Pan : Aagcs 0048 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rama Subramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Priyadarshini Mishra, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.07.2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.27,94,345/-; i.e., at the income declared as per the original return of income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2018. ORDER ON PETITION

GUNTNUR VINAY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

246/- found credited in the bank account of the appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding the amount deposited in the bank account of Rs.4

K H GURUNATH LR OF LATE K L SRIHARI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

condonation of delay, however, he could have filed it concurrently with Form 35 on 10.4.2018. He noted that assessee has disregarded the statutory requirements and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR reiterated the reasons for delay in filing appeal

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. As far as the merits of the case of the assesee is concerned, the ld counsel or the assessee submitted that ground 4 if adjudicated will render the adjudication of other grounds as academic and prayed for adjudication of ground No.4 which reads as follows:- “4. Ground on applicability of proviso

A S UDAYA SHANKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Chandra Ojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Alampalli Seetharam Udaya Shankar, Vs. Ito, No.1, Vijayalakshmi Nilaya 8Th A Main Road, Ward – 7(2)(5), Dattatreyanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore. Bangalore Girinagar S.O. – 560 085. Pan : Alcps 8326 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghvendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of one day in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the ill health of the ITP during the relevant

SRI SATISH C KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246 days. 2.1 We have carefully gone through the condonation petition. We find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing this appeal belatedly, before this Tribunal and considering the genuine problem of assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019

SRI.SATISH C.KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246 days. 2.1 We have carefully gone through the condonation petition. We find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing this appeal belatedly, before this Tribunal and considering the genuine problem of assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on the grounds raised by assessee. 6. The Ld.AR raised legal issue by challenging the validity of the re-opening under section 148 of the Act, by way of following Additional grounds: “ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 The learned AO ought to have appreciated that there was no material indicating escapement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal