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.

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances

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.

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances

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.

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances

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

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances

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

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: “That the questions referred were not questions of law but questioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances

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

delay.\na)\nb)\nc)\nAffidavit of person who was dealing with the file, was not filed.\nThe relevant records were not produced before the authorities\nconcerned.\nAffidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was based on hearsay\nand no facts were true to the knowledge of the persons who filed\nthe affidavit in support of the application for condonation

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

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question\nwhere the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was\ndeclined, held as under:\n\"That the questions referred were not questions of law but\nquestioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the\nTribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and\ncircumstances

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

44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question\nwhere the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was\ndeclined, held as under:\n\"That the questions referred were not questions of law but\nquestioners of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the\nTribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and\ncircumstances

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

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/-\n| 05.08.2017\n| 6\n| 2018-19\n| 4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n| 18.03.2019\n| 7\n| 2019-20\n| 1,01,56,742/-\n| 16.08.2019\n\n4.1 Subsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/-\n05.08.2017\n6\n2018-19\n4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n18.03.2019\n7\n2019-20\n1,01,56,742/-\n16.08.2019\n4.1 Subsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018-19 were issued

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/- | 05.08.2017 |\n| 6 | 2018-19 | 4,08,02,040/--139(4) | 18.03.2019 |\n| 7 | 2019-20 | 1,01,56,742/- | 16.08.2019 |\n\n4.1 Subsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018

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

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/-\n05.08.2017\n6\n2018-19\n4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n18.03.2019\n7\n2019-20\n1,01,56,742/-\n16.08.2019\n4.1\nSubsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018-19 were issued

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/-\n05.08.2017\n6\n2018-19\n4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n18.03.2019\n7\n2019-20\n1,01,56,742/-\n16.08.2019\n4.1\nSubsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018-19 were issued

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/- | 05.08.2017 |\n| 6 | 2018-19 | 4,08,02,040/--139(4) | 18.03.2019 |\n| 7 | 2019-20 | 1,01,56,742/- | 16.08.2019 |\n\n4.1 Subsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

44,102/- specifically addressing why the said amount should not be levied. 11. As the aforesaid scheduled hearing date was incorrectly notified and had expired, CA Chikkerur, requested the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, via email to schedule a new hearing date since the Appellant was residing in Australia. 12. Pursuant to the previous request, the Commissioner of Income

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,128/-\n05.08.2017\n6\n2018-19\n4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n18.03.2019\n7\n2019-20\n1,01,56,742/-\n16.08.2019\n\n4.1 Subsequent to centralization of the appellant's case vide PCIT-4,\nBengaluru in F.No. 45/Centl.Notfn./PCIT-4/2019-20/360 dated 02.07.2019 to\nDCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018-19 were issued

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

44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between\nordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach,\nand inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be\nrelevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must\nguide the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\n3. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance