THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel has to establish by evidence. (a) that the advice

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel has to establish by evidence. (a) that the advice

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel has to establish by evidence. (a) that the advice

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

69; the fact that there was lawyer's wrong advice has to be\nproved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this\nfurther, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an\napplicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong\nadvice given by his Counsel has to establish by evidence. (a) that the\nadvice

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

69; the fact that there was lawyer's wrong advice has to be\nproved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this\nfurther, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an\napplicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong\nadvice given by his Counsel has to establish by evidence. (a) that the\nadvice

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

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

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

69 and 69A of the Income tax Act are deeming provisions and has to be strictly construed. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not clearly specifying under which section the addition has been made. The learned Assessing Officer further failed to appreciate that in the scheme of the Act more so in respect of deemed income there

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

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

69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in Sub-Section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value

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

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

69,647/- in Norwegian Krone (NOK) in Indian currency Rs. 20,68,435/-. Further on the same tax of 59,709/- NOK i.e., Rs. 3,21,479/- was paid which is at 15.54% as per the tax assessment notice for 2018 & 2019 issued by the Norway tax department. 4. On the basis of such earned income and payment

W.S.BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.53,69,822 in view of the following additions / disallowances to the returned income of Rs.1,16,610 :- i) Income tax penalty Rs.1,47,016 ii) Adhoc disallowance of 25% of sundry creditors Rs.4

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

69 of the Act and assessed on a total income of Rs.73,64,000/- under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 01.03.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC, during the course of appellate

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

APPASAB AVADANNA LAVATE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 115BBE and assessment order u/s. 144 Page 4 of 10 of the Act was passed determining the total income of assessee at Rs.15 lakhs. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who passed an order on 11.12.2024 wherein the appeal was delayed by 89 days. Assessee failed to show sufficient cause and therefore the appellate authority