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

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

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

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

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

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held\nby the Division Bench of this Court

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

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

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

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

32,947/-\n2015-16\nr.w.s\n24.09.2019\nRs.72,65,460/- (as\nRs.43,60,000/-\nRs.1,16,25,460/-\n147\nper u/s.143(3) order\ndated 29.12.2017\n2016-17\n24.09.2019\nRs.23,91,885/-\nRs.1,41,64,664/-\nRs.1,65,56,549/-\n2017-18\n24.09.2019\nRs.23,01,559/-\nRs.19,33,025/-\nRs.42,34,584/-\n6.\nAggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

32,947/- 2015-16 r.w.s 24.09.2019 Rs.72,65,460/- (as Rs.43,60,000/- Rs.1,16,25,460/- per u/s. 143(3) order 147 dated 29.12.2017 2016-17 24.09.2019 Rs.23,91,885/- Rs.1,41,64,664/- Rs.1,65,56,549/- 2017-18 24.09.2019 Rs.23,01,559/- Rs.19,33,025/- Rs.42,34,584/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

32,947/- 2015-16 r.w.s 24.09.2019 Rs.72,65,460/- (as Rs.43,60,000/- Rs.1,16,25,460/- per u/s. 143(3) order 147 dated 29.12.2017 2016-17 24.09.2019 Rs.23,91,885/- Rs.1,41,64,664/- Rs.1,65,56,549/- 2017-18 24.09.2019 Rs.23,01,559/- Rs.19,33,025/- Rs.42,34,584/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except