THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011 for which the petitioner has not appraised this court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011 for which the petitioner has not appraised this court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011 for which the petitioner has not appraised this court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning

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

31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011 for which the petitioner has not appraised this court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning

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

31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011 for which the petitioner has not appraised this court by adducing any documentary evidence so as to examine whether delay could be condoned or not. Even for condoning

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

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature." (v) In the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned the validity

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

31 October 2018, hence interest under section 234A was not leviable. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C: 12. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Each one of the above grounds is without prejudice to the other and without prejudice to the grounds of appeal taken earlier. The Appellant reserves the right

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

31 July 2024 for both the years separately wherein the assessee is denied deduction under section 80 P of the act. 2. The solitary ground in these appeals is with respect to the fact that assessee has not been allowed the deduction under section 80 P (2) (a) (i) of ₹ 2,680,554 and ₹ 2,623,740/– respectively for both

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

31 July 2024 for both the years separately wherein the assessee is denied deduction under section 80 P of the act. 2. The solitary ground in these appeals is with respect to the fact that assessee has not been allowed the deduction under section 80 P (2) (a) (i) of ₹ 2,680,554 and ₹ 2,623,740/– respectively for both

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

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 cause for the delay. 32. Hence, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal of 2154 days may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly

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

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal by way of a combined order dt.25.10.2013; since the learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had not established that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals for these two assessment years in time. In paras

SHRI. B.L. NAGENDRA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

31 days in filing these present appeal before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 2.4 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condonation of delay at the time of hearing. Therefore the order of the learned CIT – A not admitting the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal by 208 days is not justified. ii. On the merits of the case it was submitted that the only addition made by the learned assessing officer's is with

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5.2 After adjudication of the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, there was a delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A), which is explained by the assessee as follows:- 1. “An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1951 for the Assessment