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

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

34,673/-.” 10. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 11. As far as the application for condoning delay in filing this appeal is concerned, it has been submitted in an affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay that the assessee was subjected to wrong professional advice

BIJAPUR DIST POLICE CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , VIJAYPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bijapur Dist Police Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, Bjp Dist Police Co-Op Society Gangbawadi Road, Ward – 1, Near Sp Office, Vijaypur, Vijaypur. Vijayapura – 586 101. Pan : Aabab 1338 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramesh V. Mudhol, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. At the very outset, I notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 34

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act even though the said provisions are applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e financial year 2017-18.” 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is an actual delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, however the assessee in his condonation application had inadvertently mentioned the delay

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

condonation petition explaining the reason for delay in filing this appeal as follows:- Page 2 of 15 “AFFIDAVIT I Smt. Umadevi S Y, aged 49 years, residing at Hampi Nagar, Bengaluru, do hereby swear on oath as under that 1. I am a Director of the Appellant Company, namely, Candor Business Solutions Private Limited and am well aware

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in so far the same is against the appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT (A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without affording effective opportunity of representation to the appellant

SHRIKANT BASAVANNEPPA PATTANSHETTI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HUBBLAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

34,500/- to the total income returned and raised the demand of Rs.20,58,286/- and also initiated penal proceeding 271AAC and 271B of IT Act. 3. At the outset, it is submitted that, there is delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under

QPAVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

34 days for the AY 2019-20 in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Now on going through the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for both these assessment years, we find that the assessee has belatedly filed appeals before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) by 1283 days

QPAVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

34 days for the AY 2019-20 in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Now on going through the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for both these assessment years, we find that the assessee has belatedly filed appeals before the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) by 1283 days

M/S. PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELPMENT ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Primary Co-Operative Agriculture & Vs. Ito, Rural Development, Ward – 3, Near Raghavendraswamy Mutt, Sagar, Shimoga. Shimoga District – 577 401. Pan : Aaaap 2556 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024

condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay of 34 days was due Page 2 of 4 to sufficient cause on account of the ill-health of the Principal Officer of the appellant who was not attending office for 3 months under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing officer giving effect to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 34 under section

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing officer giving effect to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 34 under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing officer giving effect to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 34 under section

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing officer giving effect to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 34 under section

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone the delay of 1694 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing officer giving effect to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 34 under section