UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Further, we also take a note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the one hand as observed in Para-4 of his Order that no reason has been made during the appellate proceeding for the delayed filing of appeal and on the other hand in para

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

condoning the short delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 7. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act on 18.1.2018 declaring nil income after

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

SASIHITHLU VENKATESHI SRILAKSHMIPRASAD ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Sasihithlu Venkateshi Srilakshmiprasad, No. 412, 1St Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Veeneshamanna Road, Ward 1(1), Vs. Fortmohalla Agrahara, Mysore. Mysore – 570 004. Pan: Gpxps4397C Appellant Respondent

Reassessment Order dated 21.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Ld. Assessing Officer)was dismissed for the reason that the delay in filing of the Appeal after 119 days was not Page 2 of 7 considered by the Ld. CIT(A) as for sufficient cause. Thus

KISHORE RAMBILAS KHANDELWAL,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , YADGIR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment and the said reasons amounted to merely reasons to suspect on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant s case. Page 3 of 9 6. Grounds on merits of the matter

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

reassessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in fertilizers and he has not filed his return of income on the ground that his income is below the taxable limit. The AO based on the information obtained in the INSIGHT Portal had found that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. MOHAMMED FAROOQ KANANA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

condone the same in the interest of justice. The delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred due to the folowing bona fide reasons beyond the control of the undersigned: 1. Change of incumbent: During the relevant period, there was a change in the incumbent Assessing Officer. The charge was handed over

MAMATHA MAHESH SHETTY,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 5. The assessee in the appeal memo has raised multiple grounds and sub grounds which are numbered as Ground Nos. 1 to 8. 6. The Ground Nos. 1, 2, 7 & 8 of the assessee’s appeal are general grounds and do not require any adjudication

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

delay in e- verification of return of income has also been condoned by the IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 19 of 21 CPC on 20.02.2023, by treating the return of income filed on 07.07.2021 as a valid return of income. 7.6 In the case of PCIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com

KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY MS KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS),BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BGL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed\nfor statistical purposes

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in\nrespect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in\nwhich search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under\nsection 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of\nassessment passed under clause

KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS ( PRESENTLY KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause

SHRI. SANNAPPA RAMAPPA,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

reassessment proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law. The learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, though the time VII limit for conducting scrutiny proceedings under Section 143 of the Act has not yet expired. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making a highly pitched addition

HEMMANAHALLY SIDDACHARI NAGAMANI,MANDYA KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1 & TPS MANDYA, MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 15,05,000/-; as unexplained money; 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in recharacterizing the nature of income. 8. The Learned

SRI. SRUSTI ASSCIATES ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

condonation of delay. The ld. AR reiterated para 5 of the Statement of Facts. He also submitted that information was submitted from time to time during the reassessment