MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act of Rs.21,15,027/- ( 17,67,740+3,47,287). The assessee filed an appeal on 15.02.2023, resulting in a delay of 156 days ITA No.705, 706 & 707/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 19 due to the reason that notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, assessment order was sent to the email id: a1itclients4@gmail.com, which

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68 of the I.T.Act. We shall adjudicate the above issues as under: Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act, amounting to Rs.61,44,440 3. The assessee along with her two children had sold a vacant land situated in Bangalore North during the relevant 2 ITA No.1105/Bang/2019. Smt.Kempanna Shylaja. assessment

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

167 I.T.R. 471 (SC)], G. Ramegowda and Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (10.03.1988 - SC) [AIR 1988 SC 897] and Royal Airways Ltd. vs ADIT [2006] 98 ITD 259 (Delhi). 3. After hearing both the parties and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68

SMT KUSHALAPPA SAVITRI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

167 ITR 471 (SC) has also taken the view that there should be a liberal and practical approach in exercising discretionary powers in condonation of delay. Keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements referred to above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal has occasioned

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act as unexplained investment on the basis of ITS information which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case and with regard to the denial of carry forward of losses, the learned A.R. vehemently submitted that the denial of losses without verification/ examination to the tune of Rs. 29,34,388/- is erroneous

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

167 TTJ 236. 7.4. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had participated in the assessment order and therefore, as per section 292BB of the Act, it is just a mere procedural irregularity and the non issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the AO of International Taxation, Ward-1(1) cannot make

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

167 TTJ 236. 7.4. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had participated in the assessment order and therefore, as per section 292BB of the Act, it is just a mere procedural irregularity and the non issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the AO of International Taxation, Ward-1(1) cannot make

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

167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons