AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076855927(1) 10.06.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077155818(1) 18/06/2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating the principles

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

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

270A of the Act, dated _14/11/2023 in which it has been mentioned that the appellate order was passed. 6. That, even in course of the penalty proceedings we had filed a response stating that the appeal filed by us was pending and it appears that the Assessment Unit had sent another notice dated 29/09/2023 stating that the appeal filed

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076855927(1) 10.06.2025 NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

AKSHATA VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

Section 270A had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under consideration wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction

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

270A of the Act in assessment year 2018-19. As such, it was come to the knowledge of assessee belatedly. The assessee failed to take remedial measures to file appeal before this Tribunal in time. In our opinion, the delay mentioned by the assessee is bonafide as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU 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

270A of the Act in assessment year 2018-19. As such, it was come to the knowledge of assessee belatedly. The assessee failed to take remedial measures to file appeal before this Tribunal in time. In our opinion, the delay mentioned by the assessee is bonafide as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition

USHA RAMASWAMY ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years: 2017-18

270A of the Act was passed on 23rd March 2022 and as per the information provided in form 35 the impugned penalty order was received by the assessee as on 23rd March 2022 itself. Therefore, the assessee as per the provision of section 249(2) of the Act was required to file the appeal within 30 days from the date

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

CONDONATION FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 30 MARCH 2023, AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 r.w.s.263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 23 MARCH 2024 AND AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 270A

MANISH JEETMAL AMBANI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270A of the act was confirmed. He thus supported the orders passed by authorities below. 9. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 10. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme

MANISH JEETMAL AMBANI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270A of the act was confirmed. He thus supported the orders passed by authorities below. 9. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 809 & 810/Bang/2024 10. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme

RNS POWER LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

section 270A (9) of the Act for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. The show cause notice was issued which was replied by the assessee. However the learned AO levied the penalty of Rs.2,22,65,728. The assessee challenged the same before the learned CIT – A who confirmed the same. And therefore assessee is in appeal

SRI. GUJJAPPA, N ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

section 270A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR before us filed a appeal book running from pages 1 to 57 and contended that the assessee has moved an application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of the delay

MEDA LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY NAVEEN KUMAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19 Mr. Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. Ito, Naveen Kumar, Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Fat No.305, Bougainvilla, Sankalp Mysore. Central Park, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 009. Pan : Ablpn 5943 K Appellant Respondent

section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs.2,17,158/- by the penalty order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, was confirmed. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal. 2. The appeal is filed by the assessee on 13.08.2025 against the appellate order received

EMVOI PHARMA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2023-24

section 270A of the Act. As the additions are unsustainable in law and on facts, the initiation of penalty proceedings is unwarranted and should be quashed. 10. Theses prima facie merits warrant an opportunity for the matter to be adjudicated fairly on merits, and justify condonation in the interest of substantial justice. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

TAKRAR RANGANATHA RAO NAGASHRE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act on 14/03/2023. Being aggrieved by the Assessment order and the notices issued subsequent to the said order the assessee preferred the appeal before NFAC. 3. Before ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has explained before NFAC that assessee is a widow

GUNTNUR VINAY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 234A and 234B of the is bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAC, 270A(1) r.w.s270A(9)(a), 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act is contrary to law on the facts and circumstances

MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL\nMOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:\n1. That the Appellant is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the\nCompanies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of executing works contracts.\n2. That the Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner\nof Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi