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

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

3) read with 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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee was in real estate business apart from pawn broking for the year under appeal. The assessee was originally assessed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 with certain additions. Aggrieved by such additions, the assessee filed appeal before

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee was in real estate business apart from pawn broking for the year under appeal. The assessee was originally assessed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 with certain additions. Aggrieved by such additions, the assessee filed appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee was in real estate business apart from pawn broking for the year under appeal. The assessee was originally assessed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 with certain additions. Aggrieved by such additions, the assessee filed appeal before

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment