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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of\nthe L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of\nsubstantial cause of justice.\n8.\nIt is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the\nappeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

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

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

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

29,14,015/-without Marate Venkateshkumar, Bangalore Page 2 of 13 considering the submission made by the Appellant and rejecting the explanation and requisite documents already submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the addition of Rs.27,87,500/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

29-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

29-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

29-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

29-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024

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

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

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

29. That, I approached SRI V SRINIVASAN, Advocate, Bangalore, for seeking advice in the matter and he advised me to file an appeal immediately by seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons that led to the delay in filing the appeal. 30. That, thereafter, I took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT without any further

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023\n| 459\n| 215\n| 244\n| 2018-19\n| 27-10-2021\n| 30-01-2023\n| 460\n| 215\n| 245\n| 2019-20\n| 27-10-2021\n| 30-01-2023\n| 460\n| 215\n| 245\n\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2017-18\n27-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2018-19 27-10-2021\n30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the\naverage delay of the relevant

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n| 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the\naverage delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2017-18\n27-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2018-19 27-10-2021\n30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n5.2.1\nIt is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the\naverage delay of the relevant

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2017-18\n27-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n459\n215\n244\n2018-19 27-10-2021\n30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n2019-20 27-10-2021 30-01-2023\n460\n215\n245\n5.2.1\nIt is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the\naverage delay of the relevant

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

29-01-2023 | 459 | 215 | 244 |\n| 2018-19 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n| 2019-20 | 27-10-2021 | 30-01-2023 | 460 | 215 | 245 |\n\n5.2.1 It is evident from the table that the original delay i.e. Column D, that the\naverage delay of the relevant AYs in the filing of appeal

M/S SAISRI POWER PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2650/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Saisri Power Projects & Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6[1][1], No.81, Plot No.5D, Bangalore. Sushobit Residency, 2Nd Block 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore – 560 079. Pan : Aancs 3278 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Inder Solanki, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit. Length of delay is not the matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to want of an acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases