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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier\nyears and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be\ndeleted.\n4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of\n*24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

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

section 143[3] of the Act dated 28/02/2022 and humbly pray your Honour to hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 12. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant / Petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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