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

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: 2025 INSC 1104 Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. (12.09.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1262/2025

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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

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 in Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1104\nShivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board

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

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

viii) 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 DRP order was uploaded on 28.01.2022 on the ITBA system with Document No.(DIN)ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2021-22/1039197813(1) and \"ΙΝΤΙΜΑTION LETTER\" dated 29.01.2022 was issued to the appellant with DIN No. ITBA/DRP/S/91/2021-22/1039197935

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

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 Page

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

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 Page

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

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 Page

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made by the A.O. 3.3 Aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Authorities

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name