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

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

condonation for delay by the assessee before the Tribunal. It has been stated therein that one Shri. Ramakrishna Reddy, CA, was engaged by the assessee to handle the aforesaid assessment. It appears that the assessee’s land at Sy. No.60/3A-1, Yeshwanthpur, measuring an extent of 7.08 Guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Property’) was compulsorily acquired by Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 263 of the Act, was in good faith to the best of my understanding and knowledge and considering the prevailing facts and circumstances. ii. That what is stated in Para 1 to 10 of the present affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.” 3. Having gone through the Affidavits, the reason

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

SMT. SARASA PRAHALAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 ORDER ON PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

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 APMG INDIA CERTIFICATIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Apmg India Certifications Private Limited, The Deputy Regus Business Centre, E-1, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Beech, Manyata Income Tax, Vs. Embassy Business Park, Centralized Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Processing Cell-Tds, Bangalore – 560 045. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaica5537D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

263 and under these facts, the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding that the assessee should not suffer on account of wrong advice of the consultant. He submitted that in the present case also, the delay is caused by the wrong advice of the consultant and therefore, the delay should have been condoned by CIT(A) and since, this

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P(2)(a) Rs.14,76,803 2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/- Total Rs.28,75,375/- 9. The ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by the assessee

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 12. As far as merit of appeals are concerned, we are of the view that the scope of proceedings pursuant to an order u/s.263 of the Act, have not been properly appreciated. The relevant provisions of Sec.263 of the Act read thus:- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 12. As far as merit of appeals are concerned, we are of the view that the scope of proceedings pursuant to an order u/s.263 of the Act, have not been properly appreciated. The relevant provisions of Sec.263 of the Act read thus:- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned the delay of 13 days caused by assessee in filing present appeals. 5. Ld.AR submitted that, for all years under consideration, identical Additional Ground Nos:12-13 are raised by assessee, being legal issue, challenging validity of order passed under section 263

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged