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

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), 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

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

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

9. That, there upon immediate steps were taken by us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble I TAT as soon as it was discovered by seeking condonation of delay since the exact date on which appellate order dated 13/03/2023 was received is not forthcoming and therefore, the limitation for filing the appeal has been calculated from the date

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

9. That, there upon immediate steps were taken by us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble I TAT as soon as it was discovered by seeking condonation of delay since the exact date on which appellate order dated 13/03/2023 was received is not forthcoming and therefore, the limitation for filing the appeal has been calculated from the date

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 are thus not only procedurally flawed but also unjustified on merits, as the case does not fall within the purview of underreporting or misreporting of income as defined under the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused

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), 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

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

9 of the paper book for condonation of the delay in filing the income tax return. The assessee along with the condonation petition has also attached the computation of income declaring an income of ₹ 28,43,830.00 after making the payment of due taxes on such income vide dated 6 March 2019 whereas the notice under section

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

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

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

9. That the Ld. AO has proceeded in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. As the additions are unsustainable in law and on facts, the initiation of penalty proceedings is unwarranted and should be quashed. 10. Theses prima facie merits warrant an opportunity for the matter to be adjudicated fairly on merits, and justify condonation

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:

condoning the delay and dismissal of the statutory appeal on mere technicalities would result in injustice to the Appellant and cause grave inconvenience and consequently the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that reason preferred

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI,HYDERABAD 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

CHANDRASEKHAR NUDURUMATI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) , BANGALORE

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