SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

delay, we condone the same and proceed to hear the matter on merit. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 2 to 9 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exempted capital gain

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned\nand appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause.\n\n12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society\nfiled its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was\nselected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

SHANKAR RAJASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

condone the said delay of 498 days and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 8. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment made by the AO assuming that the assessee had earned capital gains

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the indexed cost of interest of ₹2,51,20,901 claimed on the borrowed money utilized for acquiring the capital asset

SARITHA FLAVINA DSOUZA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The issue raised by the assessee on grounds of appeal pertains to the addition of long-term capital gain

THE BEML EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITEDIETY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

delay of 14 days is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances

THE BEML EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITIED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

delay of 14 days is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

delay in filing the present appeals in case of both the assessees stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessees Shri M. Nanda Kumar and Shri M. Narendra Kumar were running a gym and filed his return of income through e-filing. For the year under consideration both the assessees had filed their returns

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

delay in filing the present appeals in case of both the assessees stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessees Shri M. Nanda Kumar and Shri M. Narendra Kumar were running a gym and filed his return of income through e-filing. For the year under consideration both the assessees had filed their returns

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

MANIKARNIKE YADU,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2010-11

Capital Gain Account Scheme and subsequently utilised the same for purchase of property on 6.7.2012 and therefore even the addition on merit is not correct. It was further stated that along with condonation of delay

MANJUNATHA NARAYANASWAMY MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI,BIDADI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

capital gain computation, the assessee submitted some documents and claimed the cost of improvement but the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidences in support of the said claim and cost of improvement. Therefore, the AO had confirmed the additions. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing

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