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.

1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

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.

1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

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.

1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condonation. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals was in violation of natural justice.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 153A", "Section 143(3)", "Section 153D", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 271AAB", "Section 132", "Section 154", "Section 246A", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Section 80IB", "Section 253(5)"], "issues": "Whether the delay

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

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condoned the delay.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "153D", "274", "271(1)(c)", "271AAB", "154", "132", "246A", "139(4)", "5

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned authorized representative reiterated the same arguments and submitted that there is a sufficient cause and therefore the delay must be condoned. 6. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that delay is not for sufficient cause and therefore it should not be condoned. ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned authorized representative reiterated the same arguments and submitted that there is a sufficient cause and therefore the delay must be condoned. 6. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that delay is not for sufficient cause and therefore it should not be condoned. ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha

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

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

5. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for the belated filing of the Cross Objection. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the C.O. and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First

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

condonation of delay should not excuse negligence or lack of bona fides.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "271(1)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "249(3)", "253(5

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

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "271(1)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "249(3)", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the NFAC, and if the delay should be condoned

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

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "263", "144", "156", "143(3)", "10AA", "115JB", "234A", "234B", "234C", "270A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "154", "253(5

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

5 of 18\n2.4 In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and\nOrs. (167 ITR 471) laid down principle for condoning the delay,\nwherein held that when substantial justice and technical\nconsideration are pitted against each other, the cost of substantial\njustice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to\nhave vested right

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains 'an incorrect claim' for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 127 of the Act and thus the impugned Order liable to be quashed as non-est. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to Ground No.4, the impugned additions of Rs.17,41,238/- on account of cash deposit into bank account and treating the cash

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains 'an incorrect claim' for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains 'an incorrect claim' for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does