LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

SHASHIDHARA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS, SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Shashidhara, Vs. Ito, C/O Shadakshari Sri Banashakari Nilaya, Ward – 1 & Tps, Kuvempu Road, Besides Mant Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. Pan : Czyps 1448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gowrish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

condone the delay of 68 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: During the course of survey in the case of Shri. L. Venkatesh on 18.02.2019, a statement was recorded from him under section 133A of the Act. Shri. L. Venkatesh had stated that

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

condone the delay of three days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 3. The facts of the case CIT(A) are that for the ay 2014-15, the assessee electronically filed the return of income on 24/09/2014 declaring income of Rs.8,46,017/- u/s. 44AD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

condone the delay.\n7.\nThe brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad\nKansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of\nmanufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL\nIspat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business\nincome of ₹ 4,120,060/-.\nPage 4 of 40\nITA

NAYEEMUR REHAMAN,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Nayeem Ur Rehaman, No. 59, Sbm Colony, The Income Tax Officer, 3Rd Main Road, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (1), Anand Nagar, Hebbal, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 024. Pan: Acapr2011G Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and the appeal is admitted. 4. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in para no. 4.3.1 of his order, this contention was raised by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) was noted by him that as per the assessee, the entire undisclosed export sales

VENKATA REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY KIRAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Venkata Reddy Prabhakar Reddy Kiran, The Deputy No. 1142, 35Th C Cross, Commissioner Of 26Th Main, 4Th Block, Income Tax, Jayanagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Pan: Atjpk0894J Appellant Respondent : Ms. Aprichida .K. Marak, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2023 Order Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.08.2023 Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055268272(1) U/S. 250 Of The Act Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, ("Cit(A)") , Under Section 250 Of The Act Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice & Probabilities On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Authorities Below Erred In Law In Passing Order Ex Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing

condoned the delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that there was reasonable cause for delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

condoning the delay. The Ld.DR has\nfiled written submissions. Since in both the appeals, the revenue has filed\nappeal on the common grounds as mentioned above against the OIrder of\nthe learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) has treated the income as business\nincome. However, during the course of survey for the Assessment Year\n2017-18 it was accepted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

condoning the delay. The Ld.DR has\nfiled written submissions. Since in both the appeals, the revenue has filed\nappeal on the common grounds as mentioned above against the OIrder of\nthe learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) has treated the income as business\nincome. However, during the course of survey for the Assessment Year\n2017-18 it was accepted

SRI. M.K. KEMPASIDDAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

delay in filing the appeals was condoned. ITA Nos.682 to 686/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 9 3. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.683 to 685/Bang/2020, relating to AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, in so far as it relates to taxing Agricultural Income declared by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A

SRI. M.K. KEMPASIDDAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

delay in filing the appeals was condoned. ITA Nos.682 to 686/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 9 3. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.683 to 685/Bang/2020, relating to AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, in so far as it relates to taxing Agricultural Income declared by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A

SRI. M.K. KEMPASIDDAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

delay in filing the appeals was condoned. ITA Nos.682 to 686/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 9 3. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.683 to 685/Bang/2020, relating to AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, in so far as it relates to taxing Agricultural Income declared by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A

SRI. M.K. KEMPASIDDAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

delay in filing the appeals was condoned. ITA Nos.682 to 686/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 9 3. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.683 to 685/Bang/2020, relating to AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, in so far as it relates to taxing Agricultural Income declared by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A

SRI. M.K. KEMPASIDDAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

delay in filing the appeals was condoned. ITA Nos.682 to 686/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 9 3. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.683 to 685/Bang/2020, relating to AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, in so far as it relates to taxing Agricultural Income declared by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition