SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

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

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

55 years, residing at Mysuru and President of M/s. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, being conversant with the facts of the case do hereby solemnly affirm and say on oath as under:- 1. That I am the President of the above appellant Society and I am conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear

SASALU NAGARAJU SATHEESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5\nOF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963\n\nThe Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows-\n\nBrief History\n\n1.\nThe appellant, an individual filed the return of income for the assessment year\n2012-13 on 22.07.2013 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,10,000/- under the head\nincome from other sources

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

condonation of delay of 2111 days. The entire premise of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the present appeal as appearing from the following para which forms part of the submission filed by the Ld.AR dated 30/07/2022. “11. However, on account of monetary limits, the Department's appeal stood dismissed vide order dated

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A

SAMRAT GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condoning the delay in filing the appeal; 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, thereby erred in not appreciating that the delay is bonafide; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee by way of processing of TDS statement, as provisions of section 200A