INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

67,90,470 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

67,90,470 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to admit the appeal of the Appellant on the grounds that delay in filing of the appeal

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

section 8013 of the Act (Refer Pg.53 of the ITR) and advised the appellant that it has a strong case on merits and advised to file an appeal and accordingly the appeal came to be filed before your Honours on 11.07.2024 resulting in a delay of 1350 days. h. The appellant places reliance on the decision

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

67,62,478 3,39,06,138 30.8.2011 2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06, both dt.30.8.2011, the assessee filed these appeals before the CIT (Appeals) – VI, Bangalore on 13.12.2012; belatedly by 439 days as per the time prescribed under Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

67,220/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause and the delay ought to have been condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.953/B/17 4 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

67, Jolly Masjid Road, of Income Tax, Jolly Mohalla, Chickpet S.O., Central Circle 3(1), Bangalore – 560 076. Bengaluru. PAN : AAAFW 6578K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Akshaya, CA Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

condonation of delay in filing of Form 67. The decision sought by the Appellant from the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was: • Whether FTC can be denied for delay in filing of Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of Return of Income under Section

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. :

67,500/-. The assessment was concluded under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.2,68,65,354/- ; being the capital gains (LTCG) arising to the assessee after allowing exemption of Rs.18,40,300/- under section 54F of the Act and thereby raising demand of Rs.1

SRI. HANUMANTAPPA GIRIYAPUR MANJUNATHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Hanumantappa Giriyapur Manjunatha, The Income Tax 415, Brocade Vista Apartment, Officer, Bangalore South, Ward – 5(3)(3), Karnataka – 560 098. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aulpm4215E Appellant Respondent

67, it can be easily concluded that all the relevant details were duly available with him at the time of filing of return of income. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing of the appeal before the limitation

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

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

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