BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 of the Act for not proving the credit entry found in the books of accounts. 5. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the various additions made by ld. AO. However, the appeals have been filed before ld. CIT(A) belatedly as below: AY Order passed Appeal No. Date of Limitation Date of Delay

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 of the Act for not proving the credit entry found in the books of accounts. 5. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the various additions made by ld. AO. However, the appeals have been filed before ld. CIT(A) belatedly as below: AY Order passed Appeal No. Date of Limitation Date of Delay

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 of the Act for not proving the credit entry found in the books of accounts. 5. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the various additions made by ld. AO. However, the appeals have been filed before ld. CIT(A) belatedly as below: AY Order passed Appeal No. Date of Limitation Date of Delay

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required $o be condoned in the the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.".... (c) In this context, we may refer with

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

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 and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

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

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 and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,662/- against the returned income of Rs.54,95,175/-. 7. The Ld CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, erred in upholding the addition of Rs, 11,73,481/- made by the Ld AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va) read with section

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

condonation petition stating that the ld. CIT(A)’s order passed on 18.10.2022 and the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal on 1.3.2023. Thus, there was a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and the computation of delay by Tribunal at 74 days is incorrect. She submitted that either date of receipt

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay by exercising powers under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.3i,66,632/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts and circumstances

M/S. DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR KANNADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

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

68 days due to non-filing of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], as per Section

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

68 IBIS Galleria, 2nd Cross, Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), KEB Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 094. . PAN – ASUPS 9272 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Pooja Maru, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

68 IBIS Galleria, 2nd Cross, Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), KEB Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 094. . PAN – ASUPS 9272 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Pooja Maru, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment order passed by the AO, we take note of the fact that the assessee

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons