SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

delay caused in filing of appeal for 145 days is for sufficient cause and the same is condoned, admitting the appeal of the assessee. Page 4 of 9 7. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal wherein the only grievance is denial of claim of accumulation of income u/s. 11(2) of the Act of Rs.70,80,45

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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\nstatistical purposes

Section\n40(a)(ia) are not applicable in the facts of the present case.\n5. The disallowance of interest in a sum of Rs.12,49,409/- and\nRs.35,724/- are bad in law.\n6. The Hon'ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the subject interest is\ndisallowed under different provisions of the I.T. Act more than once.\n7. The applicant

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0

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

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

45\ntaxman.com 441 (Gujarat). Similar view was also taken by the\nGujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Amod Petro-\nChem (P) Ltd. 2008 ITO vs. Shri Samir J. Shah 217 CTR (Guj)\n401. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud\nAgricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Del) also held that when

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

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

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

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

45\ntaxman.com 441 (Gujarat). Similar view was also taken by the\nGujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Amod Petro-\nChem (P) Ltd. 2008 ITO vs. Shri Samir J. Shah 217 CTR (Guj)\n401. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud\nAgricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Del) also held that when

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

45\ntaxman.com 441 (Gujarat). Similar view was also taken by the\nGujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Amod Petro-\nChem (P) Ltd. 2008 ITO vs. Shri Samir J. Shah 217 CTR (Guj)\n401. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud\nAgricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Del) also held that when

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

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

SHREE SUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE ,THOKUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

45,875/- as capital expenditure, and set aside ₹10,88,080/- as a bank deposit. The AO disallowed the bank deposit as application for charitable purposes and further denied the assessee’s claim for accumulation under section 11(1) and section 11(2) of the Act, mainly because no Form 10 was filed in time and the return was belated

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