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

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 the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

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 the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

sections": [ "143(2)", "57", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "80P" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay of 282 days in filing the appeal is condonable

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

56,742/-\n| 1,93,23,032\n| 2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n5.1 noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit

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

56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n5.1 As noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nof the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\n[NOTARY seal has been scanned]\n\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

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

56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nane solusion provided

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

56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nane solusion provided

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

56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nane solusion provided

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

56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS noted that the above delay in filing of appeal comes within the ambit\nof the Hon'ble Supreme

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

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

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

condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

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

condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

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

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

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 4 of the Act, which is not the intention of the legislature. Dismissing this appeal on account of delay, would deprive the justice by not giving the assessee the refund that it deserves and therefore it was pleaded that the Tribunal may take a lenient view and condone the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee