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

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

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

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

delayed deposit of TDS of Rs.84,099/-\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 9 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2019 declaring gross total income of Rs.1,39,87,136 and claimed deduction under Chapter VIA declaring Nil income and claimed TDS

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing the TDS return, which is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to hereinabove if the application of the assessee for condoning

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

condone the delay of 4,900 days in filing the appeal. We now proceed to hear the appeal on merit. 6.12 On merit, we note that the issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the same assessment year cited above. The order dated 27th July 2021 is placed

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

delayed deposit of TDS of Rs.84,099/-.\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though there was sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant's response to the demand as action against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though there was sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant's response to the demand as action against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income

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

delayed deposit of TDS of Rs.84,099/-.\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation

SRI CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,TUMKUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay caused in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned. 25. On merits of the case, we have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that CPC levied 234E interest for belated filing of the Quarterly TDS

M/S APMG INDIA CERTIFICATIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Apmg India Certifications Private Limited, The Deputy Regus Business Centre, E-1, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Beech, Manyata Income Tax, Vs. Embassy Business Park, Centralized Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Processing Cell-Tds, Bangalore – 560 045. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaica5537D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

condonation of delay. He pointed out that in para no. 2 of this letter, it was submitted by assessee before CIT(A) that the assessee was advised by its consultant to wait for the outcome of writ petition before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 234E. The assessee also submitted that in the same para

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS on payments and raised demand under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on non-compliance of provisions of Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation

MS. SEENA DEEPAK,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s.234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015. 5. The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeals filed by the Assessee were belated and there was no application for condonation