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

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

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

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

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. L K TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

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

condone the delay of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. As regards the issue on merits, we find that the same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the ITAT, wherein, it was held that amendment to section 36

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

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

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay and consider both the appeals for adjudication. 5. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and Provident Fund u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the revenue authorities. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of development

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay and consider both the appeals for adjudication. 5. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and Provident Fund u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the revenue authorities. 6. The assessee is engaged in the business of development

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

36,19,6701- as against NIL/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. a. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the reasonable cause for the delay, as provided under Section

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

36. It is not disputed that due to appointment of Executive Director as well as Finance Director, who was transferred and new Officers could be appointed only in February, 2025, who on due diligence of pending legal matters, found the appeal is required to be filed against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), immediately on 22.4.2025 filing

PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 11. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal