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

47,57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

47,57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

47,57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

47,57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

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

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held\nby the Division Bench of this Court

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

delay based on the above discussion. Accordingly, the condonation petition filed by the assessee stands allowed. 8. On merits, we have considered the submissions by the Ld. Counsel submitted vide written submission dated 1/08/22, and the records placed before us. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that at stage of hearing, the assessee has not been able to establish

W.S.BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.53,69,822 in view of the following additions / disallowances to the returned income of Rs.1,16,610 :- i) Income tax penalty Rs.1,47,016 ii) Adhoc disallowance of 25% of sundry creditors Rs.4

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.36,03,000/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR 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.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

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.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR 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.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

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.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

47 pages. M/s. Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company, Shivamogga Page 5 of 9 6. Before us, the ld. A.R. for the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him as there was sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that