KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

delay in filing the appeal would have been condoned. 3.1 In any case and without prejudice, the learned CIT(A)- 11, Bangalore would have disposed the appeal on merits of the case. 3.2 The learned AD IT (CPC) has erred in disallowing

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act before first appellate authority. The assessee without placing any iota of evidence to suggest the mistake committed by the earlier counsel of the assessee, assessee wants to condone the delay

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 19. Coming to the merits of the issue, the grievance of the assessee is disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned and appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause. 12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowance, the AO computed the loss of the company at Rs.96,17,657/-. Thereafter, a search & seizure action was conducted in the case of one Shri Lakshman & Others on 2.2.2009. During the course of that search, certain incriminating documents pertaining to assessee were found. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened in terms of provisions of section 153C

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowance, the AO computed the loss of the company at Rs.96,17,657/-. Thereafter, a search & seizure action was conducted in the case of one Shri Lakshman & Others on 2.2.2009. During the course of that search, certain incriminating documents pertaining to assessee were found. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened in terms of provisions of section 153C

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal was not supported by any credible reason under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed

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

M/S. SNR RURAL EDUCATION TRUST,PUTTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowances to the tune of Rs.1,65,45,343. The assessee observed certain errors in Page 2 of 7 the original return filed and accordingly filed a rectification request on on 31.3.2017 which got rejected on 14.07.2017. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) where there was a delay of 523 days in filing the appeal. The assessee

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

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay supported with an Affidavit. 4. The brief facts of the case show that the assessee is an individual, deriving salary income with ANZ Operations & Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, filed his return of income on 31.7.2013 at a total income of Rs.43,24,130. The return was picked up for scrutiny, notices were issued to the assessee, however

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condone the delay. 5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that this is a case of wrong advise and the assessee filed the appeal against the assessment order after the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was levied. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted

COREGEO TECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(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 : 2020-21

disallowance of Rs.6 lakhs u/s. 40(a)(ia), raising a demand of Rs.12,91,390. 3. The assessee filed appeal on 14.06.2023 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 462 days. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. FAA issued notices and called for condonation

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

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.

condone the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal. In support of the decision of the ld CTI(A) in impugned order, the ld DR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Kuamr & others Vs. State of Haryana & Others in SLP No:6609 to 6613 of 2014 dated 24/3/2014

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

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

condone the delay. 9. The assessee regarding the delay in filing of return submitted that it was holding 2 PAN hence there was a confusion which PAN should be used for filing the return of income. Therefore, the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act should not be disallowed