SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

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

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

40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 216 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with petition for condonation of the delay stating that the ld. CIT(A)’s order dated

AYISHA FIRDOSE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 Smt. Ayisha Firdose, Vs. Ito, No.208, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Ward – 5(3)(1), Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Akxpa 8709 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

section 143(1) of the Act, assessee fled appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA). There was a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the FAA [refer para 3.1 of the impugned order of CIT(A)]. With regard to the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, assessee had filed application for condonation

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS on such payments? 2. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the 1st and 3rd substantial questions

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

40,330 for Assessment Year 2005-06. It was further submitted that if the assessee's application for condonation of delay of 439 days in filing these two appeals were rejected, the assessee would be put to great hardship. It is also submitted that even though the assessee had agreed to the additions made by the Assessing Officer

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

40,130/- (v) Unexplained credit card payments - Rs.4,18,200/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 15/3/2013 for asst. year 2010-11, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore which was belatedly filed by 323 days. The assessee filed a separate application for condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal submitting, inter

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. The case was then remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "40

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. Multi Tek Interior Solutions, Bangalore Page 2 of 8 4. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total

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

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) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed as per section

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted in the FAO, assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT in ITA No.912/Bang/2022 against the FAO raising contentions against the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act. The argument of the learned AR during the hearing before ITAT in ITA No.912/Bang/2022 was that the computation sheet attached to the final assessment

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

SRI P V KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri P. V. Krishnappa [Huf], Vs. Income Tax Oficer, Behind Maramma Temple, Ward – 6(3)(2), B. B. Raod, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru - 560 092. Pan : Aqqpp 9234 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

condoning the delay in filing the appeal 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal for disposal of this appeal are as under:- 2.1 The assessee HUF did not file the return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12. On the basis of information that the assessee along with other family Page 2 of 9 members entered into a Joint

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