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

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\nallowed

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

272\nTaxman 36) has held that Section 68 is year-specific. A credit\nof an earlier year cannot be taxed in the current year. “That\nprevious year” in Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase

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

272\nTaxman 36) has held that Section 68 is year-specific. A credit\nof an earlier year cannot be taxed in the current year. “That\nprevious year” in Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase

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

272\nTaxman 36) has held that Section 68 is year-specific. A credit\nof an earlier year cannot be taxed in the current year. “That\nprevious year” in Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase

WALVOIL FLUID POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING - 2(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Sri Pavankumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1620/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Kiadb, Transfer Pricing 2(2)(2), Attibele Indl. Area, Attibele, Anekal Bangalore. Taluk, Bangalore-562107 Pan: Aaacw 5954E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 272 days on 30.05.2018. The assessee submitted that the order under Section 154 was received only on 2.5.2018 and hence the appeal was 3 filed within the time limit. Whereas the CIT(Appeals) discussed on the issue of receipt of order of TPO dispatched on 1.8.2017. Since there is no clarity of the facts and the dates

SAVIYNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

section 143(1) on 13/11/2022 which was received by the assessee on the same date and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 272,440,940/–. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT–A on 20/1/2023 wherein the due date of filing of the appeal was 13/12/2022 thereby causing a delay of 38 days

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

condonation of delay. Being so, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeal on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Hence, he submitted that this appeal of the assessee is to be dismissed in limine. 7. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee

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

M/S BHARATH ELECTRONICS AMBEDKAR CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

272 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the reason for delay in filing the appeal advanced by the assessee is same reasons as discussed in para 3 above. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. In the impugned assessment year, there was addition by the Assessing Officer

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

272 and chart\nexplaining the issue involved.\n\n8.1 The learned AR submitted that the provisions of section 80JJAA of\nthe Act are beneficial in nature. The object of the section is to encourage\ngeneration of employment. Therefore, the provision has to be\ninterpreted liberally. It should not be interpreted in a narrow or technical\nmanner. Reliance was placed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee. 6. The sole and substantive issue emerging out of appeal and the CO is estimation of sales of the assessee and addition u/s. 69A in the light of cash seized of Rs.1.48 crores. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is a trader

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

272 and chart explaining the issue involved. 8.1 The learned AR submitted that the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act are beneficial in nature. The object of the section is to encourage generation of employment. Therefore, the provision has to be interpreted liberally. It should not be interpreted in a narrow or technical manner. Reliance was placed

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

272 and chart explaining the issue involved. 8.1 The learned AR submitted that the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act are beneficial in nature. The object of the section is to encourage generation of employment. Therefore, the provision has to be interpreted liberally. It should not be interpreted in a narrow or technical manner. Reliance was placed

YOGA NIKETAN,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K

272 was taxed in the intimation issued by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act for the reason that the assessee has not filed audit report in Form No.10B. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) after reproducing Circular No.2 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020, held that