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

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

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

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

90 days from 20/03/2020 to 17/06/2020 there is no delay considering the provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. We will therefore consider whether the bona fide belief of the assessee, that the employee contribution of PF and ESI was accepted in the intimation 143(1) since

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

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

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

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

90 days, that longer period shall apply in such cases. She thus vehemently submitted that the Draft assessment order cannot be held to passed beyond the period of limitation.\nWe have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.\nPage 14 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n6.9 It is necessary

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

condoning the delay, if any. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter, is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re- consideration of the appeals on merits without going into the question of maintainability”. Vide the above order of the Hon’ble High Court the matter was remanded to the records

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,BALLUPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,SAKLESHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

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

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

sections, thereby disputing liability for demand and penalties. 18. On 17th May 2023, the response was given for the aforesaid date stating that the Jurisdiction falls under Income Tax Officer. Ward - 2(1), International Taxation, Bangalore since the Appellant was a Non-Resident. 19. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C

ITO, HASSAN vs. M/S VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, BELUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

2(24)(iia) of the Act. It was submitted that the principles relating to capital versus revenue have to be borne in mind and capital receipts cannot be treated as income. The ld. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha. A.R. contended that the voluntary contributions received for specific purposes is a capital receipt and prayed for upholding of the impugned order

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

2,34,743/- under Section 90 of the Act, pursuant to the provisions of the India-Norway DTAA. However, the CPC, in its intimation under Section 143(1), disallowed the claim on the ground that Form 67 was not filed before the due date of filing the original return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 19.1 The learned

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

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

2(24)(iia) of the Act since they are capital receipts to be utilised for specific purpose; and in this context at paras 5.3.1 to 5.3.5 of the aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

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

2(24)(iia) of the Act since they are capital receipts to be utilised for specific purpose; and in this context at paras 5.3.1 to 5.3.5 of the aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited

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

2 SCC770),Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Moniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn.of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause