M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

83(Kol) dated 12.06.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench has not condoned the delay of 291 days, the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - A perusal of the affidavit (supra) gives an impression that the management of the said Society were engrossed in carrying out activities of the said Society and thus, could not find the time to file the appeal

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

83(Kol) dated 12.06.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench has not condoned the delay of 291 days, the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - A perusal of the affidavit (supra) gives an impression that the management of the said Society were engrossed in carrying out activities of the said Society and thus, could not find the time to file the appeal

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

83,217. A search was conducted on 09.05.2018 in the Page 2 of 7 case of T. Suresh, Bangalore in connection with search proceedings in the group case of T. Suresh and Others. Notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 31.08.2021 and assessee filed return of income on 10.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.7,73,220. Thereafter other

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned\nand appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause.\n\n12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society\nfiled its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was\nselected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

83,021 for Assessment Year 2004-05 and Rs.1,54,40,330 for Assessment Year 2005-06. It was further submitted that if the assessee's application for condonation of delay of 439 days in filing these two appeals were rejected, the assessee would be put to great hardship. It is also submitted that even though the assessee had agreed

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 4 of the Act, which is not the intention of the legislature. Dismissing this appeal on account of delay, would deprive the justice by not giving the assessee the refund that it deserves and therefore it was pleaded that the Tribunal may take a lenient view and condone the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

83,577/- and Rs.24,33,551 for both the years respectively. Aggrieved from the above orders, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the date of filing of appeal as under:- 4. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

83,577/- and Rs.24,33,551 for both the years respectively. Aggrieved from the above orders, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the date of filing of appeal as under:- 4. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals

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

condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.O. and admit the C.O. for adjudication. 7.0 The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C.O. are taken up together for disposal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative contended

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held\nby the Division Bench of this Court

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 200A of the Act for computation of the fee. In support of the above contentions, the learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.). 4.2.2 On the issue of condonation of delay

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 200A of the Act for computation of the fee. In support of the above contentions, the learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.). 4.2.2 On the issue of condonation of delay

THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeals by the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose while appeal for AY 2013-14 & 2014-

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

delay in filing the appeals is accordingly condoned. 10. As far as the merits of the various issues raised in Appeals relating to AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concerned, the common issue is with regard to treating interest income earned on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The deduction calmed

VANIGOTA SUGAR TRADING COMPANY ,VIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.45,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that when the case

AVIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delay and due to which the issue on merit as well as legal grounds not decided. Page 2 of 7 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessee, a trust, is engaged in imparting education. However, the assessee is not registered under section 12AA or under section 10(23C) of the Act for the year under

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