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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29-05-2024 ORDER PER BENCH Present appeals arises out of order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) – 11, Bangalore dated 29.01.2024 for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2018-19. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 30 2. The appeals arises out of the quantum proceedings passed in the assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D and penalty

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

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

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

29-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 1518/Bang/2025 is filed by M/s. The Karnataka State Regn and Stamps Department Officials Multi-purpose Co-op Society Ltd against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 05.07.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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.

29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present 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

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 VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

section 80C of the Act, in ITA No.953/B/17 5 computing the net taxable income of the appellant for the impugned Assessment year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in ignoring that the assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs.14,40,130/- as unexplained cash deposit

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 248 days deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. 6. The issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80P of the Act. . Page 4 of 9 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

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

29,94,308/- 2. Unexplained Credits under 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