SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 312 days in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 312 days in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- Brief History 1. The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 14.09.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.Nil/- after claiming deduction under section

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- Brief History 1. The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 14.09.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.Nil/- after claiming deduction under section

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the failure or delay in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and also submitted that jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and as such an issue can be raised

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act. The assessee herein wants to take the benefit of its wrong doing which is evident from the above narrated facts in detail. The assessee has not explained proper reason for such a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and it cannot be said that the assessee was diligent in filing appeal

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act. The assessee herein wants to take the benefit of its wrong doing which is evident from the above narrated facts in detail. The assessee has not explained proper reason for such a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and it cannot be said that the assessee was diligent in filing appeal

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

section 263 and set aside the order of the AO to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. There is a delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application for condonation

VANIGOTA SUGAR TRADING COMPANY ,VIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.45,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that when the case

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

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

condone the delay of about 34 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 263

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. The case was then remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "40(a)(ia)", "263

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 286 days. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Honourable Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) Hubli has erred both on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 263

BANDIGADI CHANDRAPPASHETTY RAJASHEKARAPPA,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. 6.1 On merit of the case, the ld. AR before us submitted that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated at the behest of the AO, which is contrary to the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. In this regard, . ITA No.772,773/Bang/2023 & 306 & 306/Bang/2025 Page

SRI. BANDIGADI CHANDRAPPASHETTY RAJASHEKARA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. 6.1 On merit of the case, the ld. AR before us submitted that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated at the behest of the AO, which is contrary to the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. In this regard, . ITA No.772,773/Bang/2023 & 306 & 306/Bang/2025 Page

BANDIGADI CHANDRAPPASHETTY RAJASHEKARAPPA,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. 6.1 On merit of the case, the ld. AR before us submitted that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated at the behest of the AO, which is contrary to the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. In this regard, . ITA No.772,773/Bang/2023 & 306 & 306/Bang/2025 Page

SRI. BANDIGADI CHANDRAPPASHETTY RAJASHEKARA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. 6.1 On merit of the case, the ld. AR before us submitted that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated at the behest of the AO, which is contrary to the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. In this regard, . ITA No.772,773/Bang/2023 & 306 & 306/Bang/2025 Page

SHA PRATAPCHAND PUKHARAJ AND COMPANY ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.55,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee firm claimed that