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

112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. ARJUNA SOUHARDHA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

112 days as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein

THIMMIAH NARAYANAPPA MURALIDHAR ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. Ito, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. Pan : Bqkpm 0728 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024

section 143(3) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, there was delay in filing this appeal. Assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay which reads as follows: “The order was served on the appellant on 10.12.2019. The Income Tax Laws (ITL) require the appeal documents to be filed before

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n7. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n7. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S MILLIPORE (INDIA) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objections are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.327/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs M/S.Millipore (India) Ltd. No.50A, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058. … Respondent Pan:Aaccm 1226 B & Co No.188/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.327/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee) Revenue By : Smt. Swapna Das, Jcit Assessee By : Shri K.K. Chaythanya, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am :

112 days in filing of cross objections. The assessee had filed condonation petition praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has occurred because of re-structure in the organization and the key personnel and employees looking after tax matters left the organization, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee. Thus

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n\n7. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

M/S. SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2023-24

condone the delay in filing the ITR for 44 days in order to allow the concessional rate as per the Form no.10IC submitted by the assessee. Further, ld. D.R. submitted that as the ITR for assessment year 2020-21 was filed on 31.3.2021, whereas the due date for filing the ITR was 15.2.2021, therefore, as per sub-section

SRI. SRUSTI ASSCIATES ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

section 115BBE for tax purpose. Accordingly assessment order was passed on 27.3.2023. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 68 days. The assessee in Form 35 has explained reasons for the delay stating that assessment order is passed on 27.03.2023 hence appeal should have been filed within

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

condonation of delay on the basis of advice of a Counsel when action based on the advice is taken after a considerable lapse of time. The appeal in ITA No.7/Bang/2022 is therefore dismissed. 7. IT(TP) No.2042/Bang/2019: As we have already seen this appeal out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which we have discussed while