THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.” The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 664, AIR 1957 SC 852, held as under (857 of AIR 1957 SC): “A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

business income under section 41(1) of the Act and consequently these incomes are also eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act. Similarly, having allowed the deduction under section 10AA of the Act in respect of hostel rent, there is no reason as to why the said deduction should not be allowed from rental income from BSNL especially

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] levied late fee u/s. 234E r.w.s 200A the Act. Under Sec.234E of the Act, if there is a delay in filing statement of TDS within the prescribed time then the person responsible for making payment and filing return of TDS is liable to pay by way of fee a sum of Rs.200

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned and appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause. 12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

income is at Rs. Nil. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein at sl.No.14 the assessee admitted the delay in filing of appeal and at sl.No.15 of Form 35 it was stated that petition for condonation of delay is attached. The condonation petition is clearly extracted

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

income is at Rs. Nil. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein at sl.No.14 the assessee admitted the delay in filing of appeal and at sl.No.15 of Form 35 it was stated that petition for condonation of delay is attached. The condonation petition is clearly extracted

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

business of alloy steel fabrication & design, alloy fabrication and skid mounted process systems. It filed return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.54,95,175. In the intimation u/s. 143(1) an addition of Rs.11,78,481 was made by the AO on account of delay

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Though the said order was served to the assessee on 29.2.2012, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.4.2012. The CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before him. He also

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

business or profession" in the assessment order and therefore, the same is entitled for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the deduction of Rs.49,91,489/- u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which was earned as an income from reserve fund deposits made