M/S SCRIPS N SCROLL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is admitted for hearing and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :- 3.1 The assessee company filed its return

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

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

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

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

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the\nrequirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing\nOfficer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is\nnecessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a\nnotice under Section

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. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

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. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

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. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , MANGALORE vs. M/S T V ALEYAS ENGINERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 1667/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11

condonation of delay dated 20/02/2018. Brief facts of the case are as under: 4. The ssessee is a private limited company and was engaged in the activity of running club with swimming pool, billiards etc and real estate business including construction activities. Ld.AO has recorded that during the year 2006 the club activities were closed down and the land

M/S. T V ALEYAS ENGINEERS PVT LTD,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 1667/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11

condonation of delay dated 20/02/2018. Brief facts of the case are as under: 4. The ssessee is a private limited company and was engaged in the activity of running club with swimming pool, billiards etc and real estate business including construction activities. Ld.AO has recorded that during the year 2006 the club activities were closed down and the land

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT vs. M/S RYTARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

delay in filing the CO is condoned. 5. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the Assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is a co-operative society engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar claimed depreciation of Rs.10,23,53,309/-. The correct claim of depreciation permissible was only Rs.1