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.

32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the principles of advancing substantial justice

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.

32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the principles of advancing substantial justice

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.

32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the principles of advancing substantial justice

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

32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the principles of advancing substantial justice

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

32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the principles of advancing substantial justice

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

32 CCH 463, where in\nit was held as under:\n“There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation\nof delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts\nof each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the\nprinciples of advancing substantial

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

32 CCH 463, where in\nit was held as under:\n“There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation\nof delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts\nof each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the\nprinciples of advancing substantial

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

32 CCH 463, where in\nit was held as under:\n“There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation\nof delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts\nof each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression 'sufficient cause' the\nprinciples of advancing substantial

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

PRATHAP SEETHARAMA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALAORE

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

32 years, son of Munirajappa employed as\nas an Auditors Assistant with the Auditors concern M/s. Jagannath and\nAssociates, situated at No.1, R.R. Building,Huttanahalli Road, Vidhya\nNagar Cross, Bengaluru - 562157 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on\noath as under:\nNOTAR\nT.R. Raghavendra Rao\nThroughout\nBengaluru Urban\nRegd. No. 20419\nGOVT\nExpiry Dt: 07-03-2025\nOF INDIA

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

32. Hence, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal of 2154 days may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted and disposed off on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 3. Further Ld. D.R. submitted that during the relevant time, the Managing Partner of the assessee firm Shri B.V. Srinivasa Reddy

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

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

MUNIYAPPA SRINIVASA GOWDA,BANGARPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.\n2.\nThere is a delay of 32 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation

M/S. BHOOLAKSHMI ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No.1, Grant Road, Cunningham Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaacb 8624N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The assessee is a company. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.37,03,670. The case was selected for scrutiny calling for various details. The Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section

M/S. KANNA INVESTMENTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kanna Investments Ltd., Dcit, Vs. No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 8373 K Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The assessee is a company. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 07.02.2018 declaring a loss of Rs.60,096/-. The case was selected for scrutiny calling for various details. The Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section

M/S. HASSAN POWER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

condonation of the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The assessee, a company, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 07.02.2018 declaring a total income of NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny calling for various details. The Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section

M/S SARTORIOUS MECHTRONICS INDIA (P) LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

section 32 of the Act. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd., 348 ITR 302 (SC) wherein it was held that goodwill is an asset on which depreciation is allowable u/s. 32 of the Act. The aforesaid development

M/S. DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR KANNADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] A.O. is not justified in not disposing off the grounds raised by the appellant with regard to the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,810/- u/s.37[1] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant