GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1)(c) of the act for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under: AY Date of order passed by AO Date of service as per Form 35 Date of filing Whether appeal is filed with time

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1)(c) of the act for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under: AY Date of order passed by AO Date of service as per Form 35 Date of filing Whether appeal is filed with time

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed Thus the assessee never wanted to challenge the assessment order and therefore there is no reason/cause which has prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The only explanation of the assessee is that the assessee consented to the addition made in the assessment order with the condition

SMT. LAKSHMI RAM RAO,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay of four years. Accordingly, the appeals filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') deserves dismissal. Further it is noted that the assessee has not produced the relevant record in support of the claim of deposit of Rs.25 lakhs in the bank account

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A), which is as under:- ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 17 S.No. ITA Nos. Asst. Year 1 882/Bang/2023 2014-15 2 883/Bang/2023

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(b) and 271E of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 Page 2 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to Law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

condoning the delay in filing C.O. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

condoning the delay in filing C.O. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts