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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

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

8 occasion the said accountant met the counsel Sri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate and place the copy of the order of penalty passed under section 270A of the Act. 9. That, Sri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate went through the files and enquired about the status of the order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer and only at that particular point

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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

270A of the\nAct, dated _14/11/2023 in which it has been mentioned that the\nappellate order was passed.\n6. That, even in course of the penalty proceedings we had\nfiled a response stating that the appeal filed by us was pending and\nit appears that the Assessment Unit had sent another notice dated\n29/09/2023 stating that the appeal filed

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

8. That, it is only after receipt of the penalty order u/ s 270A of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19, we have realized that the appeal against the aforesaid appellate orders were not yet filed. 9. That, there upon immediate steps were taken by us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble I TAT as soon

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

8. That, it is only after receipt of the penalty order u/ s 270A of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19, we have realized that the appeal against the aforesaid appellate orders were not yet filed. 9. That, there upon immediate steps were taken by us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble I TAT as soon

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

delay, without giving due consideration to the detailed submissions and application filed by the appellant for such condonation. Moreover, the dismissal of the appeal without granting an opportunity of being heard violates the principle of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The appellate order has been passed without addressing the substantive issues raised in the appeal, and hence, deserves

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

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

8. On the contrary, the Ld.DR objected for the condonation of delay. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in quantum proceedings as the delay filed was defective. He submitted that, the assessee had not filed grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and also the assessee had not responded to various notices issued. As a consequence

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

8. On the contrary, the Ld.DR objected for the condonation of delay. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in quantum proceedings as the delay filed was defective. He submitted that, the assessee had not filed grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and also the assessee had not responded to various notices issued. As a consequence

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

condoned admitting the appeal of the assessee. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee did not file any return of income but as per income tax portal, the information was received that assessee has received salary of Rs.8,74,800/-, sold an immovable property for Rs.60 lakhs, has earned interest of Rs.14,90,510/-. Assessee has also

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:

8 total income at Rs. 28,63,880 and thereby making an addition of Rs. 3,18,090. The learned AO issued the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act raising a demand of Rs. 1,83,832. The learned AO further issued notice for Penalty under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act on 14/03/2023. Being aggrieved

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

8 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nCircle 2 vide order of centralization of the Principal CIT,\nMangalore dated 28.07.2021.\n2.3. Without prejudice to the above, the proceedings\nunder Section 153A and the impugned order under Section\n153A dated 29.09.2021 are bad and non-est as the notice\nunder Section 143(2) dated 27.02.2021 was issued by the\nLearned

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

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

8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that levying interest under 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