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

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

REBECCA POOJA DSOUZA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BENGALURU

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") for\nthe Assessment Year 2018 - 19 on 05.06.2024.\n2. It is submitted that the appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days from the\ndate of the order i.e., on or before 04.08.2024, however the appeal was filed only\non 09.09.2024 and consequently, a delay of 37 days

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

UMBRELLA FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now brief facts of the case are that on receipt of application in form 10AB dated 26.06.2024 for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act, the ld. CIT(E) granted opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide notice dated 4.11.2024, wherein the assessee was required to appear before

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

33,350 as declared by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The assessment

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

33. The ld. DR submitted that the issue under consideration is applicability of provision under Section 154 and not a challenge to an order under Section 143(1) of the Act. The circular of CBDT referred to by the is relevant for the special circumstances relevant to AY 2016-17 and as such does not relate

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

33 OF CONSOLIDATION OF 4WRITTΕΝ SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 20.10.2023 - NO DIRECT INTERFACE BETWEEN DRP AND NAFAC - Para 3.2 and 3.2.2 of the letter of DRP-1, Bengaluru dated 12.07.2023,\n(ii)\nPAGE 43 OF CONSOLIDATION OF 4 WRITTΕΝ SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 20.10.2023 - NO DIRECT INTERFACE BETWEEN DRP AND NAFAC DRP UPLOADS ORDER ON \"COMMON FUNCTIONS HOME PAGE\" OF ITBA

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has raised lengthy grounds in this appeal which relates to disallowance of Rs.17 lakhs paid by the assessee as bonus to director shareholders of the assessee company u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. The ld. AR submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

NILESH RATNAKAR DESHPANDE ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and\nhear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial\ncause of justice.\n\n12. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation\nof delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant would\nbe put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the\nother

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

33,551 for both the years respectively. Aggrieved from the above orders, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the date of filing of appeal as under:- 4. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept it and observed

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

33,551 for both the years respectively. Aggrieved from the above orders, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the date of filing of appeal as under:- 4. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept it and observed