SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- Brief History 1. The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 14.09.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.Nil/- after claiming deduction under section

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

91 & 94 of PB. Similar issue was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of J C R Drillsol (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:- “We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Admittedly there is considerable delay in the appeals filed before

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

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

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

delay caused in filing of appeal for 145 days is for sufficient cause and the same is condoned, admitting the appeal of the assessee. Page 4 of 9 7. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal wherein the only grievance is denial of claim of accumulation of income u/s. 11(2) of the Act of Rs.70

AMRUTUR NINGAIAH GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

Section 69A of the Act which has no application in the facts and under the circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in presenting his case before the First Appellate authority, as the hearing notices issued by the said authority could not be accessed by your appellant due to the demise of the consultant

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay caused in filing of Form 10B for the impugned assessment year. 9. Without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in determining the income at Rs.99,08,785 failing to apply the commercial principles under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the capital receipts of Rs.39

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

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

condoned. 12. Since the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through the Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in this case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed from

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

SHREE CHANNAMALESHWARA CREDIT C-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

91,004. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2021, wherein the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act was denied. The reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act was that the assessee had not filed its return of income within the due date prescribed u/s.139

MS MEENAKSHI PRE FAB CONCRETE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the Appeal before CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The impugned adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,91,40,333/- made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act is bad in law as it exceeds the limited scope to carry out prima fade adjustments stipulated under section

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- | 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- | 5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay and the reasons