K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condone\nthe delay in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits of the matter for the\nadvancement of substantial cause of justice.\nPage 6 of 30\nITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024\n Assessment Year 2013-14\n5. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

delay by way of condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5.2 After adjudication of the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, there was a delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A), which is explained by the assessee as follows:- 1. “An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1951 for the Assessment

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5.2 After adjudication of the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, there was a delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A), which is explained by the assessee as follows:- 1. “An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1951 for the Assessment

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

section 246A of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 7 3. Considered the reason stated by the assessee along with the duly sworn Affidavit, which reads as under:- “The above named Appellant most respectfully submits as follows: 1. The Appellant is an private limited company engaged in the business of construction. The Appellant filed his return

M/S. DESAI AND COMPANY ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Desai & Company, Vs. Acit, No.1, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, Circle – 1(1), Hubballi – 560 031. Hubballi. Pan : Aaafd 9759 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parthivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2024

condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal under section 246A of the Act. The reason stated by the assessee

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

delay had already been condoned. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's submission regarding being uneducated and unable to verify e-mails. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["143(3)", "68", "246A

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246A of the Act before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 10. It is submitted that Petitioner / Appellant including appeal for the impugned assessment year 2019-10 had also filed multiple appeals for various earlier assessment years and also subsequent assessment years which were pending disposal by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 11. It is submitted that

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246A of the Act before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 10. It is submitted that Petitioner / Appellant including appeal for the impugned assessment year 2019-10 had also filed multiple appeals for various earlier assessment years and also subsequent assessment years which were pending disposal by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 11. It is submitted that

MANOHARS CATERING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay w.r.t. this appeal and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. We Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) passed an appellate order dated 30.01.2018 under section

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

246A of the Act and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67. The decision sought by the Appellant from the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was: • Whether FTC can be denied for delay in filing of Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of Return of Income under Section

MOHAMMED FAROOQ,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

section 115BBE at the rate of 60%\nunder the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n\n4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble\nCCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest\nu/s.234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, under the facts and in the\ncircumstances

VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK LTD,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKAMAGALURU

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., The Income Tax, (Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Op. Ward – 1, Court Road, Society Ltd.,), Vs. Chikkamagaluru, Banakal, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru Dist. – 577 101. Chikkamagaluru Dist – 577 113. Pan : Aadfv 8209 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 332 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the assessee society stating therein the reasons for belated

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

section 246A of the Act, which is beyond time by about 34 days in filing the present appeal and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are set-out hereinafter.  It is submitted that the appellant could not file the appeal within the statutory time permitted by the statute for the reason that soon after the impugned order

M/S. TILES GALLERY ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVMOGA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

246A of the Act and prepared the appeal papers and filed the appeal. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] issued hearing notices on various dates and The Petitioner / Appellant was under a bonafide belief that the said notices would be honoured and represented by the said tax consultant. To the shock of the Petitioner / Appellant, the said notices