M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

65,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been completed vide order dated 31.03.2006. During the course of first assessment proceedings, the AO inter-alia disallowed the following amounts: a) Disallowance of financial expenses to the tune of Rs.1,08,89,867/- b) Building maintenance charges

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

65,844 as against the Rs.7,33,350 as declared by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case

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

M/S. L K TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. As regards the issue on merits, we find that the same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the ITAT, wherein, it was held that amendment to section

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has raised lengthy grounds in this appeal which relates to disallowance of Rs.17 lakhs paid by the assessee as bonus to director shareholders of the assessee company u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. The ld. AR submitted that

SRI P V KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri P. V. Krishnappa [Huf], Vs. Income Tax Oficer, Behind Maramma Temple, Ward – 6(3)(2), B. B. Raod, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru - 560 092. Pan : Aqqpp 9234 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

condoning the delay in filing the appeal 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal for disposal of this appeal are as under:- 2.1 The assessee HUF did not file the return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12. On the basis of information that the assessee along with other family Page 2 of 9 members entered into a Joint

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.” 3. Similarly, the relevant portion of the petition for condonation of delay for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-2014, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.” 3. Similarly, the relevant portion of the petition for condonation of delay for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-2014, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

65 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. However, the Registry has noted the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 30.11.2024 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Page 7 of 14 Siddiq

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

65,111 and u/s.234B and 234C of the Act. Rs.64,187 TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs.39,79,665 3. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that there was a delay of 2111 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted vide note dated 30/07/2022 as under: “1. In the case of the Appellant, a survey

M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act, after setting off brought forward losses against the profits of eligible unit. 10. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India

SHIVANNA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the\nassessee stands allowed for statistical purpose with a cost of Rs

section 249(2) and r.w.s. 5 of the limitation act, the\ndelay was not condoned. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) issued notices to the\nassessee but there was no response from the assessee side. Accordingly, the\nLd.CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer and dismissed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n6. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee

SHRI GANGAPARAMESHWARI URABAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MUDALGI,MUDALGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay condonation u/s.119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act applied as per notification of the CBDT. 2 Shri Gangaparameshwari Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (d) That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. (e) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal

MS MEENAKSHI PRE FAB CONCRETE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

65,0770 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. Meenakshi Pre Fab Concrete, Bangalore Page 2 of 6 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the Appeal on the merits

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services

LOTUS FARMS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

65 of the paper book. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the employee incharge of the income tax matters did not inform the assessee under such circumstances regarding the assessment order having uploaded on the website. Subsequently as soon as the assessee came to know, necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8.1 The Ld.AR thus

SMT C I INDIRA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 65 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. 5 O R D E R 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 5. Ground No.1 – Unexplained Gift. 5.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned