MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

97,500/- being the Net Profit on alleged Cash Deposit of Rs.1,99,00,000/- estimated at 2.5% thereon disregarding the fact that the alleged deposits are relating to the business forming part of the Estate of the Appellant's father and the income relating to the said business is liable to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives

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

97,48,271 towards the objectives of the trust holding that the Appellant has delayed in furnishing the Form-106 and further the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding the denial of the Appellant's claim towards

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 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 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

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

condoning the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal and in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the appellant negligence under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The ld.CIT(A) failed

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

condone the delay. 17. After hearing the rival contention I observed from the facts of the case that the assessee filed return of income on 26.10.2019 claiming deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act of Rs. 18,97,111/-. The due date for filing income tax return was extended as per order No. 225/157/2019/ITA.II, dated 27.09.2019 upto

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- | 2014-15 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,23,320/- | 20,70,064 | 46,93,384/- | 2015-16 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,62,200/- | 77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | 2016-17 | 153C did. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- 2014-15 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,23,320/- 20,70,064 46,93,384/- 2015-16 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,62,200/- 77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- 2014-15 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,23,320/- 20,70,064 46,93,384/- 2015-16 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,62,200/- 77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C did. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- 2014-15 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,23,320/- 20,70,064 46,93,384/- 2015-16 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 26,62,200/- 77,27,904 1,03,90,104/- 2016-17 153C did. 27.09.2021 2,47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- | | 2014-15 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,23,320/- | 20,70,064 | 46,93,384/- | | 2015-16 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,62,200/- | 77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | | 2016-17 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

97,62,981/- | | 2014-15 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,23,320/- | 20,70,064 | 46,93,384/- | | 2015-16 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 26,62,200/- | 77,27,904 | 1,03,90,104/- | | 2016-17 | 153C did. 27.09.2021 | 2,47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C

TRITON VALVES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 7. On merits of the case, the ld. counsel for the assessee’s submission was that the opening stock, purchases as well as sales have to be valued on the same basis as the closing stock is valued in the inclusive method of accounting. For this purpose, he relied on the following case

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged