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

86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 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

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

86,500/- as determined by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] as against the Shri Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bangalore Page 2 of 9 correct income of 1,60,180/ - declared by the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred 3. in confirming

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

86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\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

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

86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\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

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

86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 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

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

condone the delay of filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the\nsame on merits.\n8.\nBrief facts of the case are as follows:\nAssessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under section 12A of the\nAct w.e.f. 28.02.2002. Assessee is helping the poor by providing food, conducting\nmedical / health camps, etc. For the Assessment Year

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to admit the appeal of the Appellant on the grounds that delay in filing of the appeal

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

86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\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

SREE JESHTA LAXMI WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

86 days may be condoned as it is sufficient reason. 4. The learned CIT(A) (learned DR) Mr. Muthu Shankar vehemently submitted that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. Hence, delay may not be condoned. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the application for condonation of delay. We find that the Order

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

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

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

M/S DESAI & CO.,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay of about 86 days delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249 [3] without

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

86,860/-. An order of Assessment dated 30.12.2008 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) computing total income at Rs. 725,277,770. The three additions that were made by the AO in this order were as follows:- (i) Expenditure on Software of Rs.95,66,521 which