M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

section 234B and 234C of the Act, on account of the aforesaid addition, and is therefore liable to be quashed.” 2. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 1141 days in filing the appeal before NFAC against the assessment order dated 18.11.2019, which was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee explained

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC ("Ld. DCIT, CPC") grossly erred by disallowing an amount of INR 24,54,650 in respect of expense

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 30 Assessment Year 2013-14 5. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section

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

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

30 days of the receipt of the order. The appellant had received order, well in time. Immediately on receipt of the order and in view of the facts that the assessment was high pitched assessment, the appellant was advised to approach an Advocate for filing writ petition. Therefore, the assessment order was given to the Advocate for filing writ petition

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

30 days of the receipt of the order. The appellant had received order, well in time. Immediately on receipt of the order and in view of the facts that the assessment was high pitched assessment, the appellant was advised to approach an Advocate for filing writ petition. Therefore, the assessment order was given to the Advocate for filing writ petition

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

30 days of the receipt of the order. The appellant had received order, well in time. Immediately on receipt of the order and in view of the facts that the assessment was high pitched assessment, the appellant was advised to approach an Advocate for filing writ petition. Therefore, the assessment order was given to the Advocate for filing writ petition

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

30 days of the receipt of the order. The appellant had received order, well in time. Immediately on receipt of the order and in view of the facts that the assessment was high pitched assessment, the appellant was advised to approach an Advocate for filing writ petition. Therefore, the assessment order was given to the Advocate for filing writ petition

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

30,000 made thereunder. The Assessing Officer is according directed". 8. The Appellant further submits that the both the lower authorities has not brought on record any evidence to show that the cash deposits are not out of the withdrawals from the bank account of the assessee and cash received from the professional services rendered by him i.e., from singing

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

30-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of orders dated 21/12/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 18/01/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 passed by NFAC, Delhi. Page 2 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 520 days in filing the appeal

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

30-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of orders dated 21/12/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 18/01/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 passed by NFAC, Delhi. Page 2 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 520 days in filing the appeal

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

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

30 June 2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is bad and erroneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as it is against the Appellant; Page 2 of 16 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay without appreciating 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

30. That, thereafter, I took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT without any further delay. M/s. Sree Minerals, Bangalore Page 7 of 21 31. That, the delay of 2154 days in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate and the same was due to the circumstances explained above and thus, there is a reasonable

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

30 Taxman 133/[1985] 153 ITR 596, considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Honble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about

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

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

30 P.M. But, owing to the Karnataka Bandh on that day on the issue of Mahadayi Project, the Appellant's representative, CA Chikkerur, emailed all the necessary documents before 2 days of hearing date and humbly requested the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 to consider the Appellant's submissions for the appeals, if the further hearing date could

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

section 8013 of the Act (Refer Pg.53 of the ITR) and advised the appellant that it has a strong case on merits and advised to file an appeal and accordingly the appeal came to be filed before your Honours on 11.07.2024 resulting in a delay of 1350 days. h. The appellant places reliance on the decision