ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

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

254 the\nTribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of the said Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condonation for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-2013, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate development. Assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed by DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore dated 28.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.158,19,10,254/-. 1.4 Order

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condonation for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-2013, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate development. Assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed by DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore dated 28.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.158,19,10,254/-. 1.4 Order

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore Page 7 of 25 6. The main ground for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the sustaining of addition of Rs.41.35 lakhs as unexplained deposit u/s 68 of the Act. As per Ld. A.R.’s information, it is noticed by the AO that assessee deposited

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

condone the delay of three days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 3. The facts of the case CIT(A) are that for the ay 2014-15, the assessee electronically filed the return of income on 24/09/2014 declaring income of Rs.8,46,017/- u/s. 44AD

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.5.2022 was dismissed without condoning the delay of 208 days. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The orders of the learned CIT(A), NFAC in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under section 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 14.06.2022 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under section 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 14.06.2022 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

BALAJI VIVIDODDESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,HOSPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, HOSPET, HOSPET

The appeal is allowed, and the assessee is entitled to the deduction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by The Income Tax Officer Ward– Page 2 of 9 1, Hospet (the learned AO) on December 20, 2019. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal at the outset because it was submitted over four years late and this delay was not considered to be for a ‘sufficient cause’. Therefore