M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act, after setting off brought forward losses against the profits of eligible unit. 10. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

carry forward losses has relied upon the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance wherein it is stated that date of transmission of data electronically shall be the date of furnishing of return, if the Form ITR-V is furnished in the prescribed manner and within the period specified. Further ITR-V was required to be furnished within a period

M/S. RAKSHA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

loss determined by the Assessing Officer cannot be carried forward and set off under the above provisions unless the return has been filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 139.” 9. Therefore, in view of what is discussed above and keeping in view the said decision, we hold that the return filed by the Assessee

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

loss entailed no adverse\nconsequence, the immediate action taken upon becoming aware of\nthe penalty proceedings, and the practical constraints in securing\nlegal assistance all establish that there was no intention whatsoever\nto disregard the statutory timeline. The appellant derived no benefit\nfrom delay; rather, it exposed the appellant to severe prejudice.\nDismissing the appeal without hearing the merits would

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

loss entailed no adverse\nconsequence, the immediate action taken upon becoming aware of\nthe penalty proceedings, and the practical constraints in securing\nlegal assistance all establish that there was no intention whatsoever\nto disregard the statutory timeline. The appellant derived no benefit\nfrom delay; rather, it exposed the appellant to severe prejudice.\nDismissing the appeal without hearing the merits would

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

loss entailed no adverse\nconsequence, the immediate action taken upon becoming aware of\nthe penalty proceedings, and the practical constraints in securing\nlegal assistance all establish that there was no intention whatsoever\nto disregard the statutory timeline. The appellant derived no benefit\nfrom delay; rather, it exposed the appellant to severe prejudice.\nDismissing the appeal without hearing the merits would

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief has to be allowed on the basis of the information available in such return or accounts or documents accompanying it. Similarly, under clause (iii) of the proviso, to disallow any deduction, allowance or relief Page 9 of 18 claimed, such deduction, allowance or relief must be such as is, on the basis

M/S. DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR KANNADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

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

forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2013-14 amounting to Rs. 75,10,566/- against the remainder of short term capital gains after the set-off of current year's business loss in accordance with the provisions of section 32[2] rws 72[2] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. Without

MS MEENAKSHI PRE FAB CONCRETE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

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

loss in current year to be carried forward a sum of Rs. 5,25,65,077/- as claimed by the Appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Assessing officer has not provided the Appellant an opportunity to show cause vide notice under section 143(1)(a) as to why the expenditure should not be disallowed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

condone this inordinate delay of 1694 days and the appeal is dismissed unadmitted. Accordingly, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine. IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 34 ITA No.468/Bang/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) (Assessee’s appeal):- 4. Grounds urged

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

forward therein the following reasons for the said delay :- 2 IT(TP)A No.1277/Bang/2011 11. The appeal documents were immediately prepared and the appeal was filed by the appellant with the ITAT on December 15, 2011. Thereby, the appeal filed by the appellant was delayed by 20 days from the actual due date of November

M/S. SSJV PROJECTS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Since the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay in filing the appeal and the CIT(A) has not dealt on the merits, therefore, we restore this dispute issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee