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

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(l SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(1 SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(1 SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condoned is 139 days as for the balance 90 days from 20/03/2020 to 17/06/2020 there is no delay considering the provisions of section

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

90,470 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

90,470 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts

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

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay in fling of the appeal by the assessee and ITA No.2170/Bang/2024 is admitted. 17. On the merits of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee not on the merits of the case, but holding that the assessee is not willing to prosecute the appeal and applied the decision

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the impugned in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 6.9 As the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT-A on technical ground

RAJENDRA SINGA DUSHYANTH SINGH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the impugned in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 6.9 As the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT-A on technical ground

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2020, and the statutory time limit for filing appeal against the impugned intimation order expired on 28.01.2021. The appeal, however, was filed only on 15.03.2024, resulting in a delay of 1,141 days. The assessee has prayed for condonation of delay, explaining that the delay was on account of the extraordinary

BACHIRA UTHAIAH POOVAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

condonation of such delay. Therefore, CPC action in disallowing the foreign tax relief claim of Rs. 2,34,743 under Section 90/90A was upheld. 16. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. The learned AR before us reiterated the argument taken before the learned CIT(A) that the requirement

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay without proper consideration of the circumstances leading to the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal duly explained. Hence, the impugned Appellate order dated 19/06/2025 be set aside. 3. For that in facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty of ₹.4,37,34,600 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

90 days from 1.3.2022. Thus, the Limitation Act has been suspended by above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court up to 31.5.2022. Hence, after excluding the Covid period delay of 213 days i.e. from 01.11.2021 to 31.05.2022 and normal limitation period in filing the appeal before this Tribunal after date of receipt of order of CIT(A) i.e. 60 days

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. DEVESH MOHAN NAYEL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Vs. Shri. Devesh M Nayel, Circle – 2(2)(1), 301, Rennaisance Regalia 95, Main Road, 15Th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Malleshwaram S.O, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Aespn 6617 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023

delay of 36 days in filing this appeal is condoned and we proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the foreign credit as disallowed by the CPC while processing of return

NILESH RATNAKAR DESHPANDE ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- 1. It is submitted that the assessee is an individual. The appellate order u/s 250 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 came to be passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment