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), 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

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,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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

270A of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by issuing notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act resulting in demand of Rs 93,68,840 dated 23 March, 2024. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time

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

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

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

condonation delay by ld.CIT(A) on a strict application of limitation in the present case would offend the principles of natural justice. “Summum jus, summa injuria” – the rigid enforcement of law in a technical manner may result in grave injustice. Justice should prevail - “fait justitia ruat caelum”. 3. The Show cause notice and order in original was passed

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

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

section 270A on 25.3.2025 by stating that the\nCIT(A) has already dismissed the appeal on 20.7.2023. Copy of this penalty\norder is enclosed as Annexure 8.\no. On receipt of the above penalty order dated 25.3.2025, the appellant did a\nthorough check of the efiling portal and found that all the replies to hearing\nnotices issued

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI ,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Facts of the issue are that there was a search and seizure action in the case of Sri Nagesh Shashtri, Tax Consultant and the search at his premises revealed that there were various wrongly claiming of refund by fabricating wrong loss from house property in the case of assessee