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(3)(2), 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. 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

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

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

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

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

Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal by way of a combined order dt.25.10.2013; since the learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had not established that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals for these two assessment years in time. In paras

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

M/S APMG INDIA CERTIFICATIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Apmg India Certifications Private Limited, The Deputy Regus Business Centre, E-1, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Beech, Manyata Income Tax, Vs. Embassy Business Park, Centralized Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Processing Cell-Tds, Bangalore – 560 045. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaica5537D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

condonation of delay. He pointed out that in para no. 2 of this letter, it was submitted by assessee before CIT(A) that the assessee was advised by its consultant to wait for the outcome of writ petition before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 234E. The assessee also submitted that in the same para

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment order passed by the AO, we take note of the fact that the assessee

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. ShantaramBaburaoPatil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. ShantaramBaburaoPatil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation. In Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106 = 2001 (44) ALR 577, the Apex Court drew a distinction between ordinary delays, which require a liberal and pragmatic approach, and inordinate delays, where considerations of prejudice may be relevant. It was reiterated that a justice-oriented approach must guide the exercise of discretion under Section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

44,167/-. This net income was assessed pursuant to section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the order dated 19.03.2024. 10. Identical orders were also passed for the Assessment Years 2016- 17, 2018 -19 and 2019 -20. 11. The Assessee collected all these Assessment Orders. Before the Ld. Appellate Authority, the Appeal was delayed

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

44,167/-. This net income was assessed pursuant to section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the order dated 19.03.2024. 10. Identical orders were also passed for the Assessment Years 2016- 17, 2018 -19 and 2019 -20. 11. The Assessee collected all these Assessment Orders. Before the Ld. Appellate Authority, the Appeal was delayed