M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act, after setting off brought forward losses

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

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss and injury. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the application is allowed. The balance of convenience, therefore, lies in favour of the Respondent. I, therefore, most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the above application and condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal, in the interests

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

loss to the revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone would be collected. We therefore accept the reason given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 19. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, we find that in respect of interest

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

loss to Revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone will be collected, we find that this is a fit case for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and do so. We accordingly set

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss or injury would be caused to the Respondent if delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice and equity and the matter be heard on the merits. Accordingly it is prayed. PLACE: DATE: Ilatf For. M/s. Hussain Multispeciality

M/S SARTORIOUS MECHTRONICS INDIA (P) LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

set out in the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. It has been stated in the said application that the common order of CIT(Appeals) was passed on 28.3.2008 and received by the assessee on 3.4.2008. It appears that the then GM(Finance) of the assessee, who is also a Chartered Accountant, advised the assessee that there

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

loss to the revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone would be collected. We therefore accept the reason given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.” 6. Keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, we will examine the present case

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

loss to the revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone would be collected. We therefore accept the reason given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.” 6. Keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, we will examine the present case

PEPPERL & FUCHS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

loss to Revenue as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law alone will be collected, we find that this is a fit case for condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and do so. We accordingly set

M/S. DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR KANNADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] A.O. is not justified in not disposing off the grounds raised by the appellant with regard to the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,810/- u/s.37[1] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

set aside.” 8. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in ex-parte order in limine and thereby erred in confirming the addition made by CPC in the intimation order issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. 9. The relevant facts are the assessee is an individual

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

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

M/S. L K TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

set aside, and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 04.11.2019, and the appeal be allowed, in the interests of justice.” 3. There was a delay of 731 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal rejecting condonation of delay of 731 days without

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

loss to the revenue and is revenue neutral, on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice and not conceding that filing of form 9A is directory in nature, the learned CIT(A) ought to have awaited the order of the learned CIT(E) in view of the condonation application filed by the appellant before the learned

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