M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

28 page 72 of the order. 11. The appellant places reliance on the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2:04 order dated 25/04/2006 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has condoned the delay of 1,331 days i.e. 3 Years, 8 Months

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

28 page 72 of the order. 11. The appellant places reliance on the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2:04 order dated 25/04/2006 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has condoned the delay of 1,331 days i.e. 3 Years, 8 Months

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned and appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause. 12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

28) We would condone the delay in all the appeals where the delay is less than a year and which has been reasonably explained. But in the case where the delay is beyond one year and upto 1474 days, we would reject the applications for condonation of delay as there is no proper explanation and no sufficient cause shown

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

28) We would condone the delay in all the appeals where the delay is less than a year and which has been reasonably explained. But in the case where the delay is beyond one year and upto 1474 days, we would reject the applications for condonation of delay as there is no proper explanation and no sufficient cause shown

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

section 143[3] of the Act, dated 30/12/2011 for the aforesaid assessment year 2009-10 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1, Bellary determining the total income of our firm at Rs. 1,66,80,870/-. 4. That, my father Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy was the Managing Partner of the firm and he was taking care

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

28 of the appeal set). However, we are enclosing another copy of the application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and request that the same may be taken on record. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Encl.: As above Yours faithfully, for King & Partridge Haline ond (Mahima Goud) Advocate King & Partridge, Advocates, 48, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 11 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal despite the fact that the merits of the matter were covered by the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the Appellant's own case vide Order dated

M/S. A R A DAIRY FARM PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ara Dairy Farm Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, No.34, Pid No.96-36-84 (Door No.609) Circle - 1(1)(1) Rajarajeshwari Block, Bangalore. Vs. Behind Akshaya Residency, Bangalore-560 024. Pan No : Aamca 6517 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Rajeev C Nulvi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2020

condoning the 28 days delay by passing order under section 250 of the Act, on 19.03.2019. It is stated that

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the impugned in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 6.9 As the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT-A on technical ground

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the impugned in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 6.9 As the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT-A on technical ground

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

28,199 after adjusting TDS. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.07.2024 with a delay of 1350 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and the reasons given by the assessee are as under:- “a. It is submitted that the appellant was not aware of the return