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

condoned the delay.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "153D", "274", "271(1)(c)", "271AAB", "154", "132", "246A", "139(4)", "5 of the limitation

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

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 the statutory appeals against the impugned order of penalty passed, by way of a separate condonation petition along with the appeal memo. 19. That, after obtaining proper professional advice and guidance from Sri. S. Venkatesan, Chartered Accountant, with

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 the statutory appeals against the impugned order of penalty passed, by way of a separate condonation petition along with the appeal memo. 19. That, after obtaining proper professional advice and guidance from Sri. S. Venkatesan, Chartered Accountant, with

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 the statutory appeals against the impugned order of penalty passed, by way of a separate condonation petition along with the appeal memo. 19. That, after obtaining proper professional advice and guidance from Sri. S. Venkatesan, Chartered Accountant, with

SOCIETE GENERALE GLOBAL SOLUTION CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the cause of action for the assessee arises from the intimation issued under section 143(1

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

1) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 7 of 43 liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

1) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 7 of 43 liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

1) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 7 of 43 liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with

ARECA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Areca Trust, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), No.23, Nadathur Place, 8Th Main, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Vs. Delhi. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aafta 7784 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the cause of action for the assessee arises from the intimation issued under section 143(1

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

1 to 3 would contend that the payment of interest by the employer in case of belated payment is statutorily leviable and a specified rate having been provided, the authority has no discretion and, therefore, it is only a matter of computation and there cannot be any challenge to it. Be it noted, it was canvassed by the said respondents

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

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

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

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

section 246A(1)(a) of the Act. In response to the notices of the hearing Issued by this office posting the hearing on the date 30-01-2018, по one appeared for the hearing. 2. I have considered the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and also gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer, the ground

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

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