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

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 43B of the Act. 8. The Ld CIT (A) and the Ld AO have erred in making the addition despite the fact that the Appellant had made the remittances towards

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereby ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated on the grounds raised by the B.M. Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga Page 2 of 16 appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant denies himself liable for penalty imposed by the learned assessing

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

73,220. Thereafter other statutory notices were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 153C the AO assessed income at Rs.6,41,08,220 and passed order on 27.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 20.06.2022 and in Form 35 date of service of order/notice of demand

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

CONDONATION OF DELAY BRIEF HISTORY: 1. The appellant is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Society Act, 1997 and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 26.09.2010 vide acknowledgment No. 160182850260910 declaring income at Rs. NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.1,00,73,630/-under section

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

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.

73,610/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,67,220/- in view of the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80C - Rs.1,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance of interest on housing Loan repayment u/s 24(6) - Rs.1,50,000/- (iii) Addition on account of difference in Gross receipts as per 26AS - Rs.11,98,062/- (iv) Unexplained cash

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

SRI CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,TUMKUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay caused in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned. 25. On merits of the case, we have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that CPC levied 234E interest for belated filing of the Quarterly TDS return by the assessee. The details are as under

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

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

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

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

73,557. 2.2 A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of one Sri Sohanraj as well as M/s. Mehta Associates, Bangalore on 10.10.2009 wherein it was found & C.O. Nos.74 & 75/Bang/2015 that the assessee was a partner in the above firm, which was the sole C&F Agent of Manikchand Gutka for the State

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

73,827/-: a. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that filing of form 9A within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory in nature and not mandatory, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below ought to have allowed the accumulation as the appellant has satisfied all other condition

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

73,057 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Later, the Draft Assessment Order (DAO) was passed on 30.09.2021, wherein the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act was not incorporated. In the draft assessment order, the A.O. had incorporated the T.P. adjustment IT(TP)A No.110/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 9 proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 234E, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appeals were filed before the FAA belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is a difference between the marginal delay and inordinate delay and referred to various judicial