INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

1) denying benefit of 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.

1) denying benefit of 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

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

1) of the Act. The learned DR submitted that assessee has only produced the order of CIT(E) wherein delay in filing Form 10 and Form 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

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

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

condonation of delay for filing form 10 prior to assessment year 2016-17. Moreover, the appellant trust has filed form 10B electronically wherein it was mentioned about set apart amount was duly deposited as per section 11(5) of the act, the proof of deposit was submitted before CIT (A) and Jurisdictional AO. Thus, dismiss of appeal without considering

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

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

section 139(1) of the Act and Form 10B was not timely submitted. However, I note that the assessee’s reliance on judicial precedents, including the Chennai Tribunal’s order in Jaya Educational Trust vs. DCIT (supra), which emphasizes that delays in filing the return should be condoned

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

1) of the act, thereby causing the delay of 364 days. 3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by observing as under: Page 5 of 9 “2.7 In view of the above discussion and legal position, the delay of 364 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as I am satisfied that

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

section 143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the petition filed before the PCIT for condoning delay in filing Form 10B

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

condone the delay in filing the Form 10B by the assessee and accordingly hold that the assessee is eligible for exemption under . Page 5 of 5 section 11 of the Act subject to the compliance of the provisions contained therein. As such we note that, the authorities below have not verified the relevant form 10B filed by the assessee belatedly

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

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

1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and inter alia argued that the appellant being a trust doing services in education in rural areas may be granted benefits of section 11 and 12A after condoning the delay in filing Form 10B

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

10B are special provisions and complete code in themselves and deals with profits and gains derived by the assessee of a special nature and character like 100% EOUs situated in SEZ, STPI etc. It was held that dedicated nature of business or their special geographical locations in STPI or SEZs. etc. makes them a special category of assessee entitled

BACHIRA UTHAIAH POOVAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

condonation of delay in filing Form 67. 19.2 The primary issue for adjudication in the present appeal is whether the non-filing of Form 67 before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) should result in the denial of FTC, despite the fact that the form was furnished before the completion of assessment. . Page