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.

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 21 of 23 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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.

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 21 of 23 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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.

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 21 of 23 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical\nnegligent manner of functioning.\n23.\nIt is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived\nground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical\nnegligent manner of functioning.\n23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived\nground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical\nnegligent manner of functioning.\nPage 21 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\n23.\nIt is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived\nground that delay in filing an appeal under Section 37

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

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

condonation of delay\nPursuant to Ld. PCIT order, Ld. AO made a fresh assessment and passed an order\nu/s 144 r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 23 March 2024 (received on 29 March, 2024) and\nmade total addition of Rs 13,37,414 to the total income of the Appellant. The Ld. AO\nmade the following adjustments to the total income

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

37-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding the 120-day delay, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

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 MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 11. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(37

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

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

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 08/10/2024 with a\ndelay of 70 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC\nrejected the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay

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

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 08/10/2024 with a\ndelay of 70 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC\nrejected the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay

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

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 08/10/2024 with a\ndelay of 70 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC\nrejected the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

37 of Rs.1,58,22,786. The AO also made addition u/s. s. 40A(3) of Rs.94,40,000 and completed the assessment on 26.11.2022. 3. Against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) ON 14.2.2023 belatedly by 111 days. The assessee filed reasons for condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay caused in filing of Form 10B for the impugned assessment year. 9. Without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in determining the income at Rs.99,08,785 failing to apply the commercial principles under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the capital receipts of Rs.39