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.

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by same assessee, wherein ITA Nos.699 & 702/Bang/2024 are emanated from quantum appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), which are directed against order of NFAC both are dated 15.3.2024, ITA Nos.699

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.

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by same assessee, wherein ITA Nos.699 & 702/Bang/2024 are emanated from quantum appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), which are directed against order of NFAC both are dated 15.3.2024, ITA Nos.699

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.

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by same assessee, wherein ITA Nos.699 & 702/Bang/2024 are emanated from quantum appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), which are directed against order of NFAC both are dated 15.3.2024, ITA Nos.699

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 21.3.2024. The assessee raised following grounds: 1. “That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] has failed to properly appreciate the facts as explained in the application for condonation of delay

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 1.1.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ADDL/JCIT (A)- 2 SURAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

D E R Per Chandra Poojari, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order of the CIT(A), Bangalore-6, dated 08.01.2018, and they relate to the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is opposed

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by assessee are directed against the common orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively all are dated 29.1.2024. In these assessment years, the ld. AO has framed the assessment as follows

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by assessee are directed against the common orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively all are dated 29.1.2024. In these assessment years, the ld. AO has framed the assessment as follows

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by assessee are directed against the common orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively all are dated 29.1.2024. In these assessment years, the ld. AO has framed the assessment as follows

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by assessee are directed against the common orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively all are dated 29.1.2024. In these assessment years, the ld. AO has framed the assessment as follows

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji all dated 16.12.2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071243914(1) for the AY 2015-16, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071244124(1) for the AY 2016-17, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071245723(1) for the AY 2017-18, vide

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji all dated 16.12.2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071243914(1) for the AY 2015-16, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071244124(1) for the AY 2016-17, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071245723(1) for the AY 2017-18, vide

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji all dated 16.12.2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071243914(1) for the AY 2015-16, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071244124(1) for the AY 2016-17, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071245723(1) for the AY 2017-18, vide

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji all dated 16.12.2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1071243914(1) for the AY 2015-16, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071244124(1) for the AY 2016-17, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071245723(1) for the AY 2017-18, vide

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. 6.1. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse." A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.4.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064276983(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section