SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in Page 8 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 order

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN,HOSUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.11,78,481 being PF & ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. It was Page

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

J C R DRILLSOL PVT. LTD. ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(1), 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

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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

51,053/-\n| 01.10.2014\n| 3\n| 2015-16\n| 21,90,102/-\n| 21.09.2015\n| 4\n| 2016-17\

J C R DRILLSOL PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4 (1)(1), BANGALORE

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

condone delay by\nenacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to\nenable the courts to do substantial

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

51,053/-\n01.10.2014\n3\n2015-16\n21,90,102/-\n21.09.2015\n4\n2016-17\n2,45,96,491/-\n27.06.2016\n5\n2017-18\n1,36,44,128/-\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

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

51,053/- | 01.10.2014 |\n| 3 | 2015-16 | 21,90,102/- | 21.09.2015 |\n| 4 | 2016-17 | 2,45,96,491/- | 27.06.2016 |\n| 5 | 2017-18 | 1,36,44,128/- | 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

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

51,053/-\n01.10.2014\n3\n2015-16\n21,90,102/-\n21.09.2015\n4\n2016-17\n2,45,96,491/-\n27.06.2016\n5\n2017-18\n1,36,44,128/-\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

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

51,053/-\n01.10.2014\n3\n2015-16\n21,90,102/-\n21.09.2015\n4\n2016-17\n2,45,96,491/-\n27.06.2016\n5\n2017-18\n1,36,44,128/-\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

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

51,053/- | 01.10.2014 |\n| 3 | 2015-16 | 21,90,102/- | 21.09.2015 |\n| 4 | 2016-17 | 2,45,96,491/- | 27.06.2016 |\n| 5 | 2017-18 | 1,36,44,128/- | 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

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

51,053/-\n01.10.2014\n3\n2015-16\n21,90,102/-\n21.09.2015\n4\n2016-17\n2,45,96,491/-\n27.06.2016\n5\n2017-18\n1,36,44,128/-\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

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

51, 1st Cross, 4th 'T' Block East,\nTilak Nagar, Jayanagar,\nBangalore- 560 041\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nबेंगलूर न्यायपीठ, बेंगलूर\nBangalore Benches, Bangalore\nक्र.सं. 1833. Date...\n\n19th December 2024\nOur Ref: TR: B-9345/2019\n20/12/24\n\nDear Sir,\n\nBangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund:\nAssessee's appeal for the assessment year