SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

unexplained delay of even a few days may reveal inaction or deliberate disregard of statutory timelines, and therefore disentitle the party to indulgence. 130. The quantum of delay has no direct nexus in law with sufficiency of the cause. The law are independent and diverse factors. Hence the extent of delay should not determine whether the cause is sufficient

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

unexplained delay of\neven a few days may reveal inaction or deliberate disregard of\nstatutory timelines, and therefore disentitle the party to\nindulgence.\n130. The quantum of delay has no direct nexus in law with\nsufficiency of the cause. The law are independent and diverse\nfactors. Hence the extent of delay should not determine whether\nthe cause is sufficient

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

unexplained share premium, which the assessee contended was a conversion of Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) from a previous year. Other issues included disallowance of advertisement expenses, ESOP expenses, and loss on sale of assets/bad debts. Appeals in ITA No. 1420/Bang/2025 and ITA No. 1457/Bang/2025 also involved penalty proceedings related to these disallowances and additions, and issues with condonation of delay

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 7.3 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.29,92,592/- u/s 147/144 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

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

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now brief facts of the case are that on the basis ofthe data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under “Operation Clean Money”, it was revealed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.18,01,000/- in his HDFC bank account no.50200007817909 during

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

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 2.3 On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that no details were filed and no explanations were provided neither before the Ld.AO nor Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition made. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

condone the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. Now brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an employee of North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation at Maski, Raichur Division in Karnataka State & working as Depot Manger did not filed his return of income for the assessment year

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condonation of delay at the time of hearing. Therefore the order of the learned CIT – A not admitting the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal by 208 days is not justified. ii. On the merits of the case it was submitted that the only addition made by the learned assessing officer's is with

JAMBALLI SHIVAPPA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Sri Jamballi Shivappa, Shivamogga Page 9 of 12 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen full time agriculturist and as per the information available, the assessee had deposited substantial cash in the bank account during

CHANNABASSAYYA JAGADEESH ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , TUMKUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual is a non-filer of income tax return for the A.Y. 2017-18 either u/s. 139 or 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Since the assessee had not filed the return in response to the notice

K N DILEEP,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is trading in Garnets and also having income from agricultural activities. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued calling on the assessee

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 17/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs.11,27,810/-. The Assessee’s case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the large cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly

SHRI. B.L. NAGENDRA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] was not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the appellant as per special taxes at 60% as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act for the amounts deposited by the appellant during the year

M/S J C R DRILLSOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act even though the assessee had submitted that the said excess share application money was received from the two Directors in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. Another addition u/s. 68 was made in both the A.Ys. Even though the assessee had explained the details of the excess cash, the AO had not accepted

M/S JCR DRILLSOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act even though the assessee had submitted that the said excess share application money was received from the two Directors in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. Another addition u/s. 68 was made in both the A.Ys. Even though the assessee had explained the details of the excess cash, the AO had not accepted

DAREKOPPA KRISHNAIAHSHETTY KESHA vs. HETTY,BANGALOREVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. DarekoppaKrishnaiahshettyKeshavshetty, Bangalore Page 9 of 12 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual derived income from salary, house property, business income from catering & financial services and income from other sources. For the Asst. year 2017-18 under appeal, the assessee had filed