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

79,665 3. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that there was a delay of 2111 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted vide note dated 30/07/2022 as under: “1. In the case of the Appellant, a survey was conducted on 07.01.1999. Subsequently, the return of income was filed on 31.12.1999 declaring loss

THE TUNGABHADRA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

79 days in filing the appeal for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2017-18 before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished affidavit in support of the delay explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under: Page 3 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 Page

THE TUNGABHADRA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1, DAVANGERE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

79 days in filing the appeal for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2017-18 before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished affidavit in support of the delay explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under: Page 3 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos. 1199 to 1201/Bang/2024 Page

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Assistant No. 4, Batavia Commissioner Chambers, Of Income Tax, Kumara Park Road, Central Circle – Kumara Park East, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr8642N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surya Tejas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.330,33,40,230/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued in response to which representative of assessee filed necessary details

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

SRI P V CHIKKA KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri P.V. Chikka Krishnappa [Huf], The Income Tax Behind Maramma Temple, Officer, B.B. Road, Vs. Ward – 6 [3] [2], Amruthahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 092. Pan: Aaohp1924J Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same and disposed off on merits under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate the bonafide reasons given by the appellant for not preferring the statutory appeal in time and denied the appellant of being heard

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeals before us and consider the appeal for adjudication. 8. Though the assessee has raised grounds both on legal issue and merits, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the merits of the case wherein it is contended that the AO has conducted proper enquiry before concluding

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

79,062/- and completed the assessment on 09.12.2019. Thereafter, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act and the AO passed Order on 08.09.2022 and rectification application filed by the assessee was rejected. The assessee filed appeal on 20.02.2023 with a delay of 1504 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) condoned

THE TUNGABHADRA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE , DAVANGERE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

79 days in filing the appeal for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2017-18 before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished affidavit in support of the delay explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under: INDIA NON JUDICIAL Government of Karnataka e-Stamp Rs. 106 Certificate No. Certificate Issued Date Account Reference Unique Doc. Reference Purchased by Description of Document

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

79,22,058/- as against the returned business income of Rs. NIL/-. 7. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved by the additions and disallowances made in the order of assessment passed under section 143[3] r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30/09/2021, has preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], NFAC, as per the provisions

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

79,22,058/- as against the returned business income of Rs. NIL/-. 7. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved by the additions and disallowances made in the order of assessment passed under section 143[3] r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30/09/2021, has preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], NFAC, as per the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE vs. M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

79 Mad, construing the time limit for completion of an assessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which provided that it shall be made "within four years from the end of the year in which the income, profit and gains were first assessable", it was held that the time limit of four years for exercise