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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

274 r.w.s. 271AAB\nThe Ld.CIT(A) noted that assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16\nto 2018-19 filed appeals against the penalty orders passed u/.s\n271AAB belatedly as under.\nAY\nDate of\norder\npassed by\nAO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal is\nfiled with time

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

condonation of delay\nPursuant to Ld. PCIT order, Ld. AO made a fresh assessment and passed an order\nu/s 144 r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 23 March 2024 (received on 29 March, 2024) and\nmade total addition of Rs 13,37,414 to the total income of the Appellant. The Ld. AO\nmade the following adjustments to the total income

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereby ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated on the grounds raised by the B.M. Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga Page 2 of 16 appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant denies himself liable for penalty imposed by the learned assessing

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal by way of a combined order dt.25.10.2013; since the learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had not established that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals for these two assessment years in time. In paras

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, 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. In terms of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, an assessee is entitled to support the order appealed against on any ground desired against him. One of the grounds which is sought to be urged by the assessee in the C.O. is that the show cause notice issued under section 274

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. In terms of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, an assessee is entitled to support the order appealed against on any ground desired against him. One of the grounds which is sought to be urged by the assessee in the C.O. is that the show cause notice issued under section 274

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. In terms of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, an assessee is entitled to support the order appealed against on any ground desired against him. One of the grounds which is sought to be urged by the assessee in the C.O. is that the show cause notice issued under section 274

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR vs. M/S THE RAICHUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , RAICHUR

In the result, the assessee's Cross Objections for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dt.16.3.2015 was also simultaneously issued. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against the above order of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.2 Subsequent to the issue of notice dt.16.3.2015 for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to which there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

condone the delay of 19 days by the assessee Page 4 of 11 in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly admit the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:- 3.1 The assessee filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of delay in itself cannot cause prejudice to the opponent and ultimately, the issues would be decided on merits on adjudication. 9. The respondent assessee craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds of cross objections, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of delay in itself cannot cause prejudice to the opponent and ultimately, the issues would be decided on merits on adjudication. 9. The respondent assessee craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds of cross objections, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of delay in itself cannot cause prejudice to the opponent and ultimately, the issues would be decided on merits on adjudication. 9. The respondent assessee craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds of cross objections, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of delay in itself cannot cause prejudice to the opponent and ultimately, the issues would be decided on merits on adjudication. 9. The respondent assessee craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds of cross objections, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of delay in itself cannot cause prejudice to the opponent and ultimately, the issues would be decided on merits on adjudication. 9. The respondent assessee craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds of cross objections, and to file written submissions and paper book at the time of actual hearing before