KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. We will therefore consider whether the bona fide belief of the assessee, that the employee contribution of PF and ESI was accepted in the intimation 143(1) since the refund was accepted, is a sufficient cause for the delay. 9. On merits

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

36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 8. The Ld CIT (A) and the Ld AO have erred in making the addition despite the fact that the Appellant had made the remittances towards PF and ESI contribution of employees before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act, which fact

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from

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

section 143[3] of the Act, dated 30/12/2011 for the aforesaid assessment year 2009-10 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1, Bellary determining the total income of our firm at Rs. 1,66,80,870/-. 4. That, my father Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy was the Managing Partner of the firm and he was taking care

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

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/-\n| 91,75,100\n| 2,28,56,970/-\n| 2018-19\n| 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n| 4,05,85,590/-\n| 1,53,09,694\n| 5,58,95,234/-\n| 2019-20\n| 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,01,56,742/-\n| 1,93,23,032\n| 2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

36 stated that the order passed by the appellate authority on 12 October 2023 is received by him only on 12 October 2023, however the appeal has been filed on 21 February 2024 wherein causing a delay of 68 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The learned assessing officer has presented a petition for condonation of the delay

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

36 on 28 June 2024 however the appeals were filed on 11 December 2024. Thereby there is a delay of 102 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section

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

36 on 28 June 2024 however the appeals were filed on 11 December 2024. Thereby there is a delay of 102 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay

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

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["250", "36(1)(va)", "143(1)", "143(1)(iv)", "143(1)(a)", "37", "234A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36(1)(vii) iii-iv CSR Expenditure Revenue appeal vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the revenue’s appeal before this Tribunal. The revenue has filed condonation petition dated 04.09.2023 seeking the delay to be condoned

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36(1)(vii) iii-iv CSR Expenditure Revenue appeal vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the revenue’s appeal before this Tribunal. The revenue has filed condonation petition dated 04.09.2023 seeking the delay to be condoned