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

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

254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal against the order of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2011 wherein the Tribunal dismissed the said application. Page 5 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore However, the Tribunal observed that the total income determined in the original assessment under Section 143(3) dated 28.03.2002 could not be reduced in pursuance of the reassessment order

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

condone Page 2 of 10 the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), ("CIT(A)" for short), is opposed to the applicable laws and facts

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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's case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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's case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income

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

2 ITA Nos.67-68/Bang/2022 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. CIT(A), the assessee had filed rectification application and on dismissal of the rectification application, appeal was immediately filed, hence, there was a delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). It was stated that if the date of rejection of rectification application is reckoned, there is no delay in filing the appeal

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

2 ITA Nos.67-68/Bang/2022 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. CIT(A), the assessee had filed rectification application and on dismissal of the rectification application, appeal was immediately filed, hence, there was a delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). It was stated that if the date of rejection of rectification application is reckoned, there is no delay in filing the appeal

M/S. SHIRLAL MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BETHANGADY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

condonation of delay in filing the return of income by the Pr.CIT, Goa u/s 119[2][b] of the Act will not help the appellant overcome the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time

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

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

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

section 143(3) r w s. 254 of the IT Act, 1961 appeared to have ben sent to the Company’s last known address. The appellant-company was managed by the family members of the shareholders and there was in-fight and the previous Management had left while transferring their shares and the present Management when they took over they

M/S. PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2020-21

254 days which was not found as because of sufficient reasons and appeal of the assessee was not admitted. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. Page 2 of 7 3. The brief facts show that assessee is a primary co-operative agricultural society, filed its return of income on 30.1.2021 at Rs.Nil. The case

MRS.SUMAN C SANU ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143

MR.K MOHAN SHET ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143

MR.UMESH SHET ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143