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

270A & 270AAC of the Act directing him to file reply in response to the notice issued. Consequent to this, assessee consulted his advocate and taken steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Thus, it caused 424 days delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and prayed to condone the delay. 3. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission

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

condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting the technical difficulties faced by the assessee. Regarding the share premium addition, the Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as it was a conversion of existing liability and not a fresh credit of money in the current year. The ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses

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

condone the delay and proceed to consider the case on merits.\n29.\nIn the substantive appeal, bearing ITA No. 1419/Bang/2025, we\nhave the deleted the disallowance of Advertisement and Business Promotion\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.24,06,60,000 and thus no penalty can be levied on\nthe same. Further, we have set aside the other two issues

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

condoned it.", "held": "The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, especially when sufficient cause was provided. The tribunal then proceeded to adjudicate on the substantive issues.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "270A

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

section 143[3] of the Act dated 28/02/2022 and humbly pray your Honour to hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 12. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant / Petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

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

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,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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n11. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded as a defective

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

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

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n11.3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded as a defective return

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

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n\n11. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded

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

RAJESH BALDA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGLAORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee\nstands partly allowed for statistical purposes

270A of the act. It was only when the order u/s.\n270A was passed, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)\nagainst the quantum addition thereby causing the delay.\n9. Be that as it may, we note that, Ld.CIT(A) issued only two\nnotices of hearing to the assessee in the same month and passed\nthe separate impugned orders