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), 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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

51, 1st Cross, 4th 'T' Block East, Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar, Bangalore- 560 041 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal बेंगलूर न्यायपीठ, बेंगलूर Bangalore Benches, Bangalore क्र.सं. 1833. Date... 19th December 2024 Our Ref: TR: B-9345/2019 20/12/24 Dear Sir, Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund: Assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2016-17: ITA No. 2245/Bang/2024

AMRUTUR NINGAIAH GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

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

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

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

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

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

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

BIJAPUR DIST POLICE CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , VIJAYPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bijapur Dist Police Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, Bjp Dist Police Co-Op Society Gangbawadi Road, Ward – 1, Near Sp Office, Vijaypur, Vijaypur. Vijayapura – 586 101. Pan : Aabab 1338 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramesh V. Mudhol, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

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

SHRIKANT BASAVANNEPPA PATTANSHETTI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HUBBLAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

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

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 250 of the Act dated 25/03/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, may be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the appellant without