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", "271AAC(1

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

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

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

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

condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt of the impugned order of assessment

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

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

1) for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case., _ 2. The NFAC erred in sustaining the levy of penalty in terms of Section 270A of the Act dated 28.08.2021 amounting to Rs. Rs.2,69,843/-without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the provisions

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

1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income under section 139 of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 3,88,840/- only. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings the assessee, through authorized representative, submitted that

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

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

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

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

1. ITA No.1795/Bangalore/2025 is filed by Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Naveen Kumar (the assessee/appellant) against the order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT(A)], for assessment Year 2018-19 dated 20.05.2025 wherein the penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs.2,17,158/- by the penalty order dated 13.09.2024 passed

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay in filing these appeals and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. 3. The following grounds are raised by the assessee. “1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act dated, 31-12-2018 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law and therefore, the same is liable