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

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

10B was condoned. It is submitted that since delay in filing the return of income has not been condoned, CIT(A) was justified in not allowing accumulation of income under section

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay is also not reasonable cause for filing appeal late. Whenever intimation is generated it is ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 12 immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay is also not reasonable cause for filing appeal late. Whenever intimation is generated it is ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 12 immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification

M/S. SARVADEIVATHA EDUCATION TRUST(REGD),KODAGU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD, MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

condonation of delay in filing form 10B for A.Y. 2018-19 or any subsequent years, wherein there is a delay of upto 365 days and to decide on merits. 5.1. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that these circulars were not considered either by the authority under the provisions of section

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

section 11, since Assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

section 11, since Assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

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

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

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

section 11(6) of the Act, the AO was of the view that assessee cannot be allowed claim of depreciation and therefore the same was disallowed. Page 5 of 9 10. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.21,03,91,082 by assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2018. 11. The assessee

M/S. MANDYA KRISHIK SARVODAYA TRUST,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Mandya Krishik Sarvodaya Trust, Vs. Ito, No.Ca 04, Krishik Sparda Soudha, Ward – 1 & Tps, 1St Stage, Khb Extension, Karasavadi Road, Mandya. Mandya – 571 401. Pan : Aaatk 8975 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

condoning delay in filing Form 10B, the Provisional Registration Certificate under section 10AC of the Act, copy of Form 10B

SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION SOCIETY HEGDEKATTA,SIRSI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

section 11 and 12A after condoning the delay in filing Form 10B report. The assessee also relied upon certain judgements

M/S. SEVA BHARATHI SHIKSHANA SAMSTHE ,CHAMARAJANAGARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2016-17

condoned the delay in filing Form 10 B prescribed under the Act. 5. On the contrary the ld. DR submitted that it is mandatory to file form 10B before the due date of filing the income tax return which the assessee has defaulted and therefore the assessee cannot be given the benefit of section

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, 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

10B which was also granted by the AO. Thereafter the assessee filed her application before the Ld.CIT(E) for condoning the delay in filing the form no. 9A which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E). The Ld.CIT(E) had observed that the return has been filed after the due date i.e. on 30/03/2017 and the form 9A was also uploaded

SHREE CHANNAMALESHWARA CREDIT C-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act, filed either in the Board or in field formation for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 and decide such applications on merits in accordance with the law where such person is required to get his accounts audited under respective State Laws. ….. ….. 7. The CCsIT/DGsIT shall

SHRI GANGAPARAMESHWARI URABAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MUDALGI,MUDALGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act, filed either in the Board or in field formation for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 and decide such applications on merits in accordance with the law where such person is required to get his accounts audited under respective State Laws. ….. ….. 7. The CCsIT/DGsIT shall

M/S. SSSS AND SPAS PUNYAKSHETRA TEMPLE TRUST®,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2016-17

condone the delay, but remain unsuccessful. Now the issues which require consideration is a) whether non filing of any of Form 10B, would vitiate the entitlement of assessee for the benefits of section

ROHAN CARE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2022-23

section 139 of the Act. VII. The learned CIT(A) has failed to consider that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report in Form 10B and condonation