ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

40A is being substituted to nullify the loophole created by the judicial decisions, the legal position remains the same even after the said substitution. The newly substituted sub- section (3) contains the phrase "a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day..." This expression is analogous to the phrase "in a sum" used in erstwhile Sec.40A

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned the delay of 13 days caused by assessee in filing present appeals. 5. Ld.AR submitted that, for all years under consideration, identical Additional Ground Nos:12-13 are raised by assessee, being legal issue, challenging validity of order passed under section 263. For sake of convenience we are reproducing additional ground No. 12-13 from assessment year

THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeals by the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose while appeal for AY 2013-14 & 2014-

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

delay in filing the appeals is accordingly condoned. 10. As far as the merits of the various issues raised in Appeals relating to AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concerned, the common issue is with regard to treating interest income earned on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The deduction calmed

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

condonation petition which is placed at Paper Book Page No.1 to 12 in which it has been stated as under: 1. The appellant named above is engaged in conducting & promoting horse racing. An order of assessment was passed under section ITA Nos.694, 695/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 8 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 wherein disallowances were made under section

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

condonation petition which is placed at Paper Book Page No.1 to 12 in which it has been stated as under: 1. The appellant named above is engaged in conducting & promoting horse racing. An order of assessment was passed under section ITA Nos.694, 695/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 8 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 wherein disallowances were made under section

SRI. T. SHIVAKUMAR,DAVANGERE vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 04. Grounds taken by the assessee in its appeal is reproduced hereunder : ITA.884/Bang/2014 Page - 4 05. Facts apropos are that assessee a contractor had filed his return declaring income of Rs.4,05,830/- for the impugned assessment year. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by the AO. Assessee was required

M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

SRI C M MALLAD,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Channabasappa M Mallad, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayanagar Colony, Central Circle – 1, Solapur Road, Vs. Belgaum. Bijapur. Pan : Ajlpm 7802 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 O R D E R

40a(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 in the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of IT Act, 1961 as in the present case. He submitted that under similar facts, the Tribunal in that case condoned the delay and restored the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh

M/S. MANIPAL HOSPITALS (DWARKA) PVT. LTD., (BEFORE MERGER APPROVED BY NCLT KNOWN AS 'MANIPAL HOSPITALS (JAIPUR) PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 660 days. 5. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of running hospitals and filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring a loss of Rs.53,99,72,875. The assessee entered into a service agreement with MEMG International Page 3 of 9 India Pvt. Ltd. [MEMGIIPL

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

BABULAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

BABULAL ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MILLENNIUM BEER INDUSTRIES LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 3. The facts f the case, briefly, are as under; 3.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Beer, filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 25-09- 2009 declaring loss of Rs.10,57,50,801/-. The return was processed

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

condonation of delay which is as under: “The abovenamed appellant/petitioner most respectfully submits as follows: 1. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 27.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited

M/S. EL MEASURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

40a(ia) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved by addition made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 3. Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee failed to provide any substantiation regarding the exact expenditure incurred and parties to whom payment have been made, any proof of residence and applicability of non-deduction of tax on these payments. It was ITAA

M/S DESAI & CO.,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

7 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by refusing to condone the delay of about 86 days delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249 [3] without going into the merits of the case of the Appellant which is against the principles of natural

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit is filed by the Revenue stating that " I Shri. Santosh Bheemaiah, IRS son of Sri. Bheemaiah.B aged 42 about years, Deputy

MR. CHITHAPPA KARTHIK YADAV,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

delay to be condoned in filing these appeals and the appeals are deemed to be filed in time for further adjudication. The Brief facts of the case: 4. The assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 06.02.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.9,99,270 under the head ‘Profits