VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and we make no comment on merit. 6. In the result

VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CI.T., BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and we make no comment on merit. 6. In the result

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

M/S AUTOLIV INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

condone the delay on the reasoning that there was no compelling reason for the delay. Aggrieved the assessee has filed appeal before us. 3. The assessing officer re-opened the assessment of the year under consideration and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.02.2013, wherein he again made the addition relating to “Product Development

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

reassessment Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 proceedings and consequently, the assessment order was passed u/s. 147 of the act, cannot be objected at this stage. 3.9 Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on both the assessment years. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed

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

reassessment Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 proceedings and consequently, the assessment order was passed u/s. 147 of the act, cannot be objected at this stage. 3.9 Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on both the assessment years. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

u/s. s. 40A(3) of Rs.94,40,000 and completed the assessment on 26.11.2022. 3. Against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) ON 14.2.2023 belatedly by 111 days. The assessee filed reasons for condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

147 of the Act was 30.03.2004 passed assessing the income of Rs. 1,49,45,076/- On appeal against the order u/s 143(3) the CIT(A) 21.02.2005 dismissed the same. ITAT passed the order against the order of the CIT(A) Mysore dt. 21.02.2005 in favour of the assessee, directing 21.04.2006 the AO to allow unaccounted expenditure in relation

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. 19. The resultant position is that as far as the present case is concerned the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act subsequent to 16th December 2010 when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. 19. The resultant position is that as far as the present case is concerned the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act subsequent to 16th December 2010 when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that

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

reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B on 01/03/2024. The same was immediately handed over to my chartered accountant Shri Satish Naik. However, the tax consultant did not file appeal within the time before NFAC and same was filed after the delay of 117 days. Irene Pereira, Udupi Page 7 of 10 3. I, say that, I am a ‘Non-Resident

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the order dated 19.03.2024. 10. Identical orders were also passed for the Assessment Years 2016- 17, 2018 -19 and 2019 -20. 11. The Assessee collected all these Assessment Orders. Before the Ld. Appellate Authority, the Appeal was delayed by 84 days. The Assessee in form number 35 mentioned

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the order dated 19.03.2024. 10. Identical orders were also passed for the Assessment Years 2016- 17, 2018 -19 and 2019 -20. 11. The Assessee collected all these Assessment Orders. Before the Ld. Appellate Authority, the Appeal was delayed by 84 days. The Assessee in form number 35 mentioned