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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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

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 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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

6 of 18 appeal before ld. CIT(A) without its authority and not placed any evidence to suggest that the assessee has taken any action against that counsel who has wrongly withdrawn the ground relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act before first appellate authority. The assessee without placing any iota of evidence to suggest the mistake

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 28.12.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059153151(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17 and dated 07.02.2024 vide DIN & Order

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated of the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore for the AY 2013-14 not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 22.2.2024 for the AY 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] - 11, Bengaluru, under Section 250 of the Act dated

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ludhiana dated 29.03.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1063630074(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2021-22. 2. At the outset

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

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 proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the combined orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore dt.25.10.2013 for Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : 2.1 A search action under section 132 of the Income

LAKE CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2020-21

D E R PERSHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25/03/2024 impugned herein passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, [CIT(A)], Bangalore/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

6(2)(2) Bangalore; where in it was held that A Souharda Sahakari is a form of Co-operative Society and is registered under the KarnatakaSouharda Sahakari Act, 1997and is bound to Statutory Audit under the said Act.Since, the books of accounts of the appellant are subject to audit under c_D-0 '4,e Act apart from the Income

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for the AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 dated 24.4.2024. Since the issue in all the appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The assessee