PALO ALTO NETWORKS (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2022-23

delay. 9.3 However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the request of condonation of the assessee by observing that, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Electricity Board (260 ITR 84), any intimation issued under Section

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The CIT(A) in this regard has drawn a chart of dates on which the orders were passed by the AO, the date on which it was served and the date on which the appeals were filed. The said chart is reproduced for the sake of clarity. F.Y. Date of Order Date

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

M/S. DEVINDHI CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, , BIJAPURA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. . Page 3 of 7 3. The assessee has raised as many as 8 grounds of appeal and the issue raised therein is interconnected pertaining to the addition of Rs. 44,21,458/- only. 4. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

260 Not 13.01.2021 available 4. Aggrieved from the above intimation, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). During the course of filing of appeal in Form No.35, assessee had filed separate annexure for condonations of delay which has not been properly appreciated by the learned CIT(A) and without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding extension

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

260 Not 13.01.2021 available 4. Aggrieved from the above intimation, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). During the course of filing of appeal in Form No.35, assessee had filed separate annexure for condonations of delay which has not been properly appreciated by the learned CIT(A) and without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding extension

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

260 Not 13.01.2021 available 4. Aggrieved from the above intimation, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). During the course of filing of appeal in Form No.35, assessee had filed separate annexure for condonations of delay which has not been properly appreciated by the learned CIT(A) and without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding extension

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

260/- as per the acknowledgement of return. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and other statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.11.2021 and 04.01.2022. Assessee made compliance on 24.02.2022 with documentary support. The AO accepted the documents furnished and returned income was also accepted. Later

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. As far as the merits of the case of the assesee is concerned, the ld counsel or the assessee submitted that ground 4 if adjudicated will render the adjudication of other grounds as academic and prayed for adjudication of ground No.4 which reads as follows:- “4. Ground on applicability of proviso