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.

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

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.

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 253(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I do affirm that whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 5. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for the belated filing of the Cross Objection. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

4 of 30\nAY 2016-17 18-03-2021 | 18-04-2021 | 11-03-2023 | 692 days delay\nAY 2017-18 | 18-03-2021 | 18-04-2021 | 12-03-2023 693 days delay\nAY 2018-19 | 18-03-2021 | 18-04-2021 | 12-03-2023 693 days delay\n5. Penalty appeals 274 r.w.s. 271AAB\nThe Ld.CIT(A) noted that assessee

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condoned the delay.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "153D", "274", "271(1)(c)", "271AAB", "154", "132", "246A", "139(4

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively for these two assessment years. 1.1 There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying

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

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

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

section 143 ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli (1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 14/7/2020 and 16/12/2021 respectively passed by the central processing Centre, Bangalore for the assessment year 2019 – 20 and 2020 – 21 , are partly allowed. 2. The assessee

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

section 143 ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli (1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 14/7/2020 and 16/12/2021 respectively passed by the central processing Centre, Bangalore for the assessment year 2019 – 20 and 2020 – 21 , are partly allowed. 2. The assessee

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

1) and hence could not file the appeal with the stipulated time. We humbly pray before your goodself to be generous and accept our petition for condonation of delay for the captioned appeal.” ITA Nos.327/Bang/2024 SJS Enterprises Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 4.1. As seen from the above, assessee has stated that assessee was failed to take note

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. We have carefully considered the reasons stated by the Assessee for delay in filing of Appeal by 58 days. On perusal of the facts stated in condonation petition it is shown that the delay is because of the ill health of the tax consultant who could not communicate the Assessee that against the Appellate Order, the Appeal should have

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

1)(c)\n20.09.2022\n20.10.2022\n01.10.2023\n346\n3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition\nfor quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\nPage 4 of 23\ndeficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders.\nThe assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal

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

1)(c)\n3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition\nfor quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\ndeficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders.\nThe assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will\nbe decided only

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

4 days. However, in\nthe present case, the delay was inordinate which is 2006 days. That\nprinciple cannot be applied herein. In our opinion, the law assists\nthose who are vigilant, not those sleep over their rights. The delay\ncannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case calls for a\nsmooth or merely out of benevolence to the party

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

1. Notice dated 31. 12.2020 15.01.2021 No compliance 2. Notice dated 22. 04.2021 07.05.2021 No compliance 3. Notice dated 24. 11. 2022 11.11.2022 Filed condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type