M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance of Rs.11,78,481 being PF & ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. It was Page

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

85 days in filing the appeal. However the assessee explained the reasons in Statement of Facts about the delay. We also note from Form 35 that the assessee paid the necessary amount towards appeal fee on 19.04.2022 which is within 30 days of assessment order passed on 27.03.2022. It is clear from Form 35 that the intention of the assessee

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/-\n| 1,53,09,694\n| 5,58,95,234/-\n| 2019-20\n| 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,01,56,742/-\n| 1,93,23,032\n| 2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n5.1 As noted

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\nOSARDS noted that

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para 2.0 above.\n\nSARDS

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

85,892. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 30.10.2020 during COVID 19 Pandemic and deduction under Chapter VIA was denied to the assessee and total income was considered at Rs.1,39,87,140. Accordingly there was a tax demand of Rs.58,28,199 after adjusting TDS. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First

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

85,34,673/-.” 10. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 11. As far as the application for condoning delay in filing this appeal is concerned, it has been submitted in an affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay that the assessee was subjected to wrong professional advice

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

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

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

section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. i. The appellant humbly prays that this Horilple Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed

M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

85,039/- is exempt under section 10A of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee applied for registration of their unit under software technology Parks of India which was granted in the month of December 2008. The Ld.AO observed that, the assessee claimed exemption pertaining to 10A, for period of 3 months, towards the end of the relevant financial year

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

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

JAYASHREE S,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Jayashree S, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.147, 30Th Cross, Income Tax (Cpc), Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Income Tax Office, Bangalore-560 070. Ward – 7(2)(4), Pan : Aakpj 2584 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S. R., Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Of Cit(A)-7, Bangalore, Dated 24.04.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Impugned Intimation Being Bad In Law Without Jurisdiction & Not In Accordance With Any Of The Provision Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case & Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay For Filing Of Appeal & Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Holding That The Delay Is Nothing But Negligence & Inaction Of The Appellant & There Exists No Sufficient Or Good Reason For Condoning The Delay. On Proper Appreciation Of Facts & The Law Applicable, The Appellant Was Page 2 Of 6

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The ultimate object of assessment proceedings is that the true and correct income of the assessee be brought to tax. In the case on hand, the intimation processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by CPC dated 03.08.2016 for Assessment Year 2015-16 has resulted

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