BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18

251 of the Act and remanded back the case to the assessing officer to BasavanneppaGuledakeri Page 2 of 11 verify the facts after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,01,000/- as Unexplained money

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal. 5. Again, being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed two paper books comprised of 47 pages. M/s. Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company, Shivamogga Page 5 of 9 6. Before

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)

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu leaves

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

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n13. As regards addition of Rs. 1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n13.1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs. 1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu leaves

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

section 154 of the Act was filed on 10.12.2018 against the assessment order and the same was pending adjudication before the AO. It is further submitted that after receiving the rectification order dated 08.09.2022, the accountant responsible for filing the appeal had missed to file the same. I came to know about the non-filing of appeal only when

BANNANJE GRAHAKARA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 21/09/2016 declaring gross total income of Rs.30,08,301/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2), the total income was nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were

M/S. NATURAL REMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.43,12,042 being claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the I.T.Act. 4 M/s.Natural Remedies Private Limited

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

SREE VENKATESHWARA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 154(7) of the Act. . Page 3 of 8 6. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed delay condonation application and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. HARIS MUHAMMAD SAIT, BENGALURU

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

delay was nominal and was caused due to sufficient reasons, hence the same is condoned. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of contract execution, filed its return of income on 14.2.2017 at a total income of Rs.43,13,050. The case of the assessee was selected

RAVI RAO,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

section 251(1)(a) of the Act the ld. CIT(A) is directed to send it back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. However, in the case of assessee, delay was not condoned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page