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

vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 10. Honourable supreme court recently in Neutral Citation

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n6. Facts of the case are that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, it was noted by the AO that the appellant had received large\nshare premium during the concerned year in question. Various notices\nwere issued from time to time and were complied by the appellant. On\nperusal

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

vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in\ncondoning the delay; and\n(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the\nparameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning\nthe delay for the reason that the conditions have been\nimposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.\"\n\n9. Hon'ble supreme court recently

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the revenue’s appeal before this Tribunal. The revenue has filed condonation petition dated 04.09.2023 seeking the delay to be condoned. It is submitted as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the revenue’s appeal before this Tribunal. The revenue has filed condonation petition dated 04.09.2023 seeking the delay to be condoned. It is submitted as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the revenue’s appeal before this Tribunal. The revenue has filed condonation petition dated 04.09.2023 seeking the delay to be condoned. It is submitted as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

vii) In view of the detailed evidence FILED ON 20.10.2023 IN CONSOLIDATION OF 4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS and explained above, whereby it is clearly established that the AO passed order much ahead of the due date as prescribed under section 144C(13) of the I.T.Act,1961, the ADDITIONAL GOA FILED BY APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 07.06.2022 THAT FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,SAKLESHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under