K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27-05-2024 : 29-05-2024 ORDER PER BENCH Present appeals arises out of order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) – 11, Bangalore dated 29.01.2024 for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2018-19. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 30 2. The appeals arises out of the quantum proceedings passed in the assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

27,87,500/- on account of cash deposit made during the demonetization period (08-11- 2016 to 30-12-2016) and thereby raised demand of Rs. 29,14,015/-without Marate Venkateshkumar, Bangalore Page 2 of 13 considering the submission made by the Appellant and rejecting the explanation and requisite documents already submitted during the course of assessment proceedings

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

27-12-2019, after making various additions. For this assessment year, assessee went for an advice of a tax consultant and he asked for earlier years’ records by that time, assessee came to know about the lapse on the part of the earlier counsel and advised to the present counsel that assessee filed the appeals against penalty orders before

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

27-12-2019, after making various additions. For this assessment year, assessee went for an advice of a tax consultant and he asked for earlier years’ records by that time, assessee came to know about the lapse on the part of the earlier counsel and advised to the present counsel that assessee filed the appeals against penalty orders before

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

section 143[3] of the Act, dated 30/12/2011 for the aforesaid assessment year 2009-10 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1, Bellary determining the total income of our firm at Rs. 1,66,80,870/-. 4. That, my father Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy was the Managing Partner of the firm and he was taking care

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to admit the appeal of the Appellant on the grounds that delay in filing of the 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

27,414/- Hubbali erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 4,97,500/- being the Net Profit on alleged Cash Deposit of Rs.1,99,00,000/- estimated at 2.5% thereon disregarding the fact that the alleged deposits are relating to the business forming part of the Estate of the Appellant's father and the income relating to the said

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

27,414/- Hubbali erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 4,97,500/- being the Net Profit on alleged Cash Deposit of Rs.1,99,00,000/- estimated at 2.5% thereon disregarding the fact that the alleged deposits are relating to the business forming part of the Estate of the Appellant's father and the income relating to the said

SRI. SURESHA CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 249 and it is delayed by 265 days and after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from the said order, the assessee

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in his case. The learned Authorised Representative pleaded that if the assessee's delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the assessee would be put to great hardship, by being burdened with an erroneous tax burden of Rs.6,27

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

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

27-9-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -5, Bengaluru dated 31/1/2017 for asst. year 2010-11. ITA No.953/B/17 2 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

27 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in assessment year 2017-18. He has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. In assessment year 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without participation of the assessee. 4.1 It was further noted that there was a delay of 318 days in filing