SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 11. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(37) of the Act. Section 10(37) of the Act provides for exemption when there is compulsory acquisition of agricultural land which is located in an urban area. One of the conditions

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 41 days caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act with the main object to Manufacture & sale of Cancer Medicine. The assessee has an objective of constructing a Big Cancer Hospital to provide

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. The disallowance of interest in a sum of Rs.12,49,409/- and Rs.35,724/- are bad in law. 6. The Hon'ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the subject interest is disallowed under different provisions of the I.T. Act more than once. 7. The applicant

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

SECTION 253(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal, in the interests of justice and equity. BANGALORE DATE: Halkin Gand ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT KING & PARTRIDGE

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

45,390/- Thereafter, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme,2019. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act were issued. After considering the submissions of the assessee, submissions through video conference and also material available on record, the National Faceless Assessment Centre passed

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 1 54 of the Act for the impugned assessment year under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has failed to consider the Circular No. 10 dated 22/05/2019 issued by CBDT condoning the delay caused in filing of Form 10B for the impugned assessment year. 9. Without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

10. Without Prejudice the learned assessing officer is not justified in law in adding a sum of Rs. 7,16,22,000/- under section 69A / 69 of the Income Tax Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without Prejudice the learned Assessing Officer is not correct in making addition under a specific section of the Act. Section

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

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

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

Section 249[3] of the Act without giving any notice of the proposed dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay especially when detailed submissions were made on merits of the disallowances made in the 2 ITA No.1001/Bang/2022. M/s.Dream Logistics Company Private Limited. impugned order on earlier occasions of hearing. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

delay based on the above discussion. Accordingly, the condonation petition filed by the assessee stands allowed. 8. On merits, we have considered the submissions by the Ld. Counsel submitted vide written submission dated 1/08/22, and the records placed before us. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that at stage of hearing, the assessee has not been able to establish

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- | 2019-20 | 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals

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

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 4,05,85,590/- 1,53,09,694 5,58,95,234/- 2019-20 143(3) did. 27.09.2021 1,01,56,742/- 1,93,23,032 2,92,59,772/- 5.0 The appeals

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

45,798/- as unexplained cash credits need to be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant could not have influenced the share prices as the sale took place in a recognized stock exchange on a screen based system where the traders in shares are unknown and thus