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

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

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

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

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

270A of the Act for under reporting of income is not\njustified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside.\n4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued\nis bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled.\n5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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

270A of the Act for under reporting of income is not\njustified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside.\n4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued\nis bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled.\n5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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

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

2. Respondent\n3. DRP\n4. CIT\n5. CIT(A)\n6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore.\n7. Guard file\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar,\nITAT, Bangalore.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee company filed an appeal against the orders of the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeals without going into the merits due to delay in filing. The delay was attributed to technical difficulties with

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

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

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

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

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the quantum order and delay of 3 days in filing the appeal against the penalty appeal, passed by the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR filed affidavit stating the reason for delay caused in filing the appeals before

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

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the quantum order and delay of 3 days in filing the appeal against the penalty appeal, passed by the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR filed affidavit stating the reason for delay caused in filing the appeals before

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

2 of 6 date of receipt of the order is assumed as the date of receipt of order. The reasons stated by the assessee shows that due to the insufficient knowledge of the assessee about the e-filing portal, a nominal delay of 13 days has occurred which may be condoned. On reading the affidavit, condonation petition, hearing the parties

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