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

Section 43A of the Act. Against the same, the assessee is in appeal before. 3. At the outset, it is noticed that there was delay of 951 days in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has not well educated and passed only 10th class and entrusted work of filing of appeal to an auditor

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condonation petition. The Petitioner was hopeful of a favorable order as the delay in filing Form 10B was 378 days. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi, passed an order under section

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

378, wherein held as follows:- "..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeals before us and consider the appeal for adjudication. 8. Though the assessee has raised grounds both on legal issue and merits, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the merits of the case wherein it is contended that the AO has conducted proper enquiry before concluding

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

378 wherein it was held as follows:- “..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position

MNS PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Mns Printers Pvt. Ltd., No.345/4, Old Madras Road, Bhattarahalli, Bangalore-560049. … Appellant Pan:Aabcm 9873 F Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

delay cannot be condoned as ignorance of law is not an excuse and the assessee had not revealed source of ill-advice given. The Hon’ble High Court held in parat.7 to tell as follows: “7. This is not a case wherein the appellant is an illiterate person, who may not know the repercussion in law. Further

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). 9. We have noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has also adjudicated the issues on merits. The ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions to submit that the non-furnishing of copies of Form No.15G and Form No.15H to the Commissioner of Income tax would not make

S & G LIFESTYLES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned and appeals admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee, a firm, is engaged in manufacturing and selling of trousers catering to both domestic and international markets. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the facts arising out of AY 2018-19 are taken up for consideration, where it filed its return. The assessee has remitted employees contribution towards

S & G LIFESTYLES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned and appeals admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee, a firm, is engaged in manufacturing and selling of trousers catering to both domestic and international markets. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the facts arising out of AY 2018-19 are taken up for consideration, where it filed its return. The assessee has remitted employees contribution towards

SMT. GALI VANAJA,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dated, 13-03-2023 in ITA No.CIT(A)- 11/BNG/10007/2006-03 passed consequential to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos 1006-1008/Bang/2013 remanding the appeals back to the file of the Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. SMT. GALI VANAJA, BELLARY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dated, 13-03-2023 in ITA No.CIT(A)- 11/BNG/10007/2006-03 passed consequential to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos 1006-1008/Bang/2013 remanding the appeals back to the file of the Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee. 6. The sole and substantive issue emerging out of appeal and the CO is estimation of sales of the assessee and addition u/s. 69A in the light of cash seized of Rs.1.48 crores. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is a trader

ALERT MANPOWER,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condoned. 4. The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing manpower to industries. The returns of income for the assessment years under consideration

ALERT MANPOWER,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condoned. 4. The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing manpower to industries. The returns of income for the assessment years under consideration

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

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

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the extent which is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the appellant had received large share premium during the concerned year in question. Various notices were issued from time to time and were complied by the appellant. On perusal

SRI BRAMARAMBA PATTINA SOUHARDA SHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,MASKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

condone the delay of 10 days, the Registry found that as per the provisions, there is no such delay and therefore we are not adjudicating the said application. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the interest income earned by the assessee is out of the statutory investments made in the fixed deposits with co-operative banks

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

condoning the delay in filing the appeals, on further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2013 has directed the ld. CIT{A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. The appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 are pending for disposal before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the statement that the assessee