THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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

2 herein stands dismissed on the\nground of delay. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall\nbe no order as to costs.\"\n6.9 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee was\nnot able to establish “sufficient cause” for filing the appeals belatedly\nbefore the NFAC and the assessee has made very bald

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

2 herein stands dismissed on the\nground of delay. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall\nbe no order as to costs.\"\n6.9 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee was\nnot able to establish “sufficient cause” for filing the appeals belatedly\nbefore the NFAC and the assessee has made very bald

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

249 (Delhi), this Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings\nafter noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the\nAssessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory\nto serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after the return filed by the\nAssessee

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

249 (Delhi), this Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

249 (Delhi), this Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(2)", "143(3)", "153C", "127", "139(1)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condonable

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay petitions for the belatedly filed appeals, taking into account the medical evidence now produced.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(3)", "139(1)", "249(3)", "249(2

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(2)", "143(3)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals was caused by sufficient reason and whether it should be condoned

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of more than 240 days on an average for\nrelevant AYs. As per section 249(2), the Appellant

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of more than 240 days on an average for\nrelevant AYs. As per section 249(2), the Appellant

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of more than 240 days on an average for\nrelevant AYs. As per Section 249(2), the Appellant

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of more than 240 days on an average for\nrelevant AYs. As per section 249(2), the Appellant

SRI. SURESHA CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 249 and it is delayed by 265 days and after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from the said order, the assessee