“appeal before the tribunal”

M/S Mhm Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: - 3 M/s. MHM Holding Pvt. Ltd. 1. On the facts

Malavally Taluk Sri Basaveshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Malavally Taluk Sri Vs. The Ito, Basaveshwara Credit Cooperative Ward – 1 & Tps, Society Ltd., Mandya. Kote Beedi, Malavalli, Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Afepa 6862 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2022 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Credit Co-Operative Society. In The Assessment Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) By An Order Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Earned Interest Income Of Rs.3,20,999/- Being Interest Earned On Deposits With The Co-Operative Bank. The Assessee Claimed The Same As Deduction Under Sections 80P(2)(A)(I)/80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Deduction Under Sections 80P(2)(A)(I)/80P(2)(D) Was Denied By The Ao By Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs. Totagar’S Co-Operative Society (2017) 83 Taxmann 140 (Karnataka) Wherein It Was Held That Interest Earned On Page 2 Of 3

para 4 of the impugned order of the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the rival submissions, I am of the view that in so far as interest on deposits in Co-operative Banks

Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Vs. The Ito, Sriya, 109, 3Rd Main, Sfs 407, 4Th Ward – 3(3)(3), Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan : Abips 5283 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Anil Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022

were assigned by the AO for the rejection. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the SMC of ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, in the case of Col.Rajan

Chandre Gowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Chandre Gowda, Vs. Cit (Appeals) - 7, No.655, Unnathi, 2Nd Cross, Hmt Bengaluru. Layout, R. T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. Pan : Adnpg 8890 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, Dated 12.10.2017, Relating To Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 1501 Days In Filing The Above Appeal By The Assessee. The Order Of The Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.10.2017. Appeal Before The Tribunal Has To Be Filed Within 60 Days From The Date Of Service Of The Order Of Cit(A). In Form 36, The Assessee Has Given The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order As 11.10.2017 Which Is Obviously Not Correct. The Correct Date As Given In The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Is 09.12.2017 As The Date Of Service Of The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Assessee. We, Therefore, Proceed Under The Assumption That The Date Of Order Is The Date Of Service Of The Order On The Assessee. The Assessee Ought To Have Filed The Appeal Before The Page 2 Of 4

delay of about 1501 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was passed on 12.10.2017. Appeal before the Tribunal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of service of the order of CIT(A). In Form 36, the assessee ... appeal and came to know that the appeal has not been filed. Thereafter, the assessee contacted Mr. Mahesh Nayak, CA and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee claims that there is a delay of 3 years and 9 months in filing the above appeal. It has also been

Rajesh Suresh Vernekar, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Davangere

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed and copy of the order should be placed in all the respective files

Bench: George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

decided the issue and passed the consolidated order on 15.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal passed its order on 27.11.2018 and restored the matter to the file to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication ... Rs.5,000/- 2. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed.” 8. Against the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The order passed by the AO was not within the reasonable time. He also submitted that

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessed taxable total income 37,04,76,664 7. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising 42 grounds. The grounds are exhaustive and elaborative. The gist of the issue raised ground-wise, which were pressed before the ITAT

Jameel Ur Rahaman, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

I.T.Act was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a farmer and not educated. It was submitted that the assessee was not aware

Sri. Thayappa Balakrishna, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 8(1), Bangalore

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

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

therefore partly allowed.” 8 ITA No.101/Bang/2020. Sri.Thayappa Balakrishna. 8. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 113 pages enclosing therein audit report in Form 3CB and Form 3CD, the financial statement