THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

5 of the Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 141. Test of "sufficient cause" cannot be substituted by an examination of the merits of the case. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on explanation for the delay

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not attracted. 2. After hearing both the parties, it was noted that there was a delay of 2006 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition explaining the delay as follows: Appellant AFFIDAVIT Respondent I, Harish Kumar. B.S. S/o Sri Benakashetty Sharanappa aged about 35 years

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay along with the affidavit and request that the same may be taken on record. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Encl.: As above Yours faithfully, for King & Partridge Haline ond (Mahima Goud) Advocate King & Partridge, Advocates, 48, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru 560 001 T: +91 80 2221 2341/22214532 E: admin@kingandpartridge.in Sir HC King and PW Partridge And at Hyderabad and Chennai

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 80 IA deduction in issue reading as under: "6. Considering the submissions made by the appellant in connection with the delay in filing of appeal, the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on the merits as follows. The appellant has filed an appeal on account of disallowance u/s 80 IA while processing

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. That the above partnership firm was originally constituted under the Deed of partnership dated 14/11/2006 between Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy and Smt. B Sreelatha, my father and mother respectively, who were carrying of business of mining of Iron-ore, Manganese, Granites, Quartz and other minerals and transportation of the same

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

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

YELBURGA PROWDA SHALA NOUKARARA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA (N),YELBURGA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

5 of 8 ii. the 1st day of April. 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision ofthis Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S. HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and allow deduction u/s. 80IB(7) of the Act. He relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vanishree Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No.386/Bang/2012 dated 07.12.2012. 8. The ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals

M/S. HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and allow deduction u/s. 80IB(7) of the Act. He relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vanishree Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No.386/Bang/2012 dated 07.12.2012. 8. The ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

5. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. We have carefully considered the condonation petition, the explanation offered by the assessee, and the submissions of the learned representatives. We find that the explanation is supported by consistent judicial precedents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains 'an incorrect claim' for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does