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

117 taxmann.com 66 (SC)\nFidoNdated 23-3-2020 had given directions that delay is to be condoned during\nthe period from 15-3-2020 to 14-3-2021 and finally condoned delay upto 28-2-\n2022 in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com\n307/441 ITR 722 (SC) Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated

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

117 taxmann.com 66 (SC)\nFidoNdated 23-3-2020 had given directions that delay is to be condoned during\nthe period from 15-3-2020 to 14-3-2021 and finally condoned delay upto 28-2-\n2022 in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com\n307/441 ITR 722 (SC) Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated

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

117 taxmann.com 66 (SC)\nFidoNdated 23-3-2020 had given directions that delay is to be condoned during\nthe period from 15-3-2020 to 14-3-2021 and finally condoned delay upto 28-2-\n2022 in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com\n307/441 ITR 722 (SC) Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated

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

117 taxmann.com 66 (SC)\ndated 23-3-2020 had given directions that delay is to be condoned during\nthe period from 15-3-2020 to 14-3-2021 and finally condoned delay upto 28-2-\n2022 in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com\n307/441 ITR 722 (SC) Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated

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

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

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

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

section 148A(d) of the Act, assessee’s submission filed before the NFAC, bank statements, Details of payment made to Plama Developers, property purchase agreement along with passport copy and immigration details. The assessee has also submitted employment letter of Kuwait Oil Company as well as salary letter of Kuwait Oil Company. 7. Before us, learned AR of the assessee

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

117 ITR 125 held that any 7. NA assessment made on the basis of a return, which is an invalid or a non-est return, is void ab initio and even notice u/s 143(2) cannot be issued. Page 3 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore The Hon'ble CIT(A), Mysore failed in adjudicating upon the validity

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

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

117, wherein it has been held that- "filing of Form 67 as per the provisions of section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC with respect to the wordings ". 8. The Learned CIT(A) ignored the provisions of the Act and Rule 128(9) that it is direction

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

117, wherein it has been held that- "filing of Form 67 as per the provisions of section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC with respect to the wordings ". 8. The Learned CIT(A) ignored the provisions of the Act and Rule 128(9) that it is direction

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

117/-. The AO found that in applying the formula for claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the Assessee had reduced telecommunication expenses incurred in foreign currency both from the Export turnover and total turnover. According to the AO, as per the definition of Export turnover, the said expenses have to be deducted only from Export turnover and total turnover

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

117/-. The AO found that in applying the formula for claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the Assessee had reduced telecommunication expenses incurred in foreign currency both from the Export turnover and total turnover. According to the AO, as per the definition of Export turnover, the said expenses have to be deducted only from Export turnover and total turnover

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee

SAROJAMMA,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

117. PAN: FWCPS9217L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gokul, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for Dept. Date of Hearing : 26-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26-08-2025 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24/10/2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.23.9.2011

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

RAM AVADHANULU JONNAVITHULA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condoned. Page 6 of 10 9. We further note that the assessee is a salaried employee and employed with Tessolve Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. and Tessolve Inc. during the year and earned income from salary, house property, capital gains, dividend and interest income. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.7,27,493 which was denied by the CPC. The assessee