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. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

119 Taxman. Com ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 18 383(SC) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could not condone the delay, for the want of medical records and has observed as under: - “The main excuse of delay in filing

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

119 Taxman. Com ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 18 383(SC) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could not condone the delay, for the want of medical records and has observed as under: - “The main excuse of delay in filing

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

119(2)(b) of the Act by observing that there is no mention of condonation of delay in filing Form 67 in CBDT circular no.9/2015 and no other similar circular has been issued by the Board for condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form

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

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

c) The learned CIT(A) (Faceless) has not considered the application filed for delay condonation u/s.119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act applied as per notification of the CBDT. 2 Shri Gangaparameshwari Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (d) That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Vikram Shetty, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Unit 2, 17, Peterson Street, Ward 5(3)(1), Highett, Victoria, Bengaluru. Australia. PAN: ASUPS 9590D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Deepak Bhat, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel. Date

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) to admit and Page 17 of 20 decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism

AMITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2008-09

condonation of delay in filing return of income will not amount to acceptance to claims in the return of income. Accordingly, he expressed the view that the deduction u/s 10A of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee, since the return of Amiti Software Technologies Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 8 income was not filed within the due date

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

C!T(A) ought to have considered the rectification order issued under 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

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

C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No.203/Bang/2024 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 Shree Channamaleshwara Credit The Income Tax Office Co-operative Society Limited Ward 1 (TPS) v. Opp : Ram Mandir Gulbarga. Main Road Shahabazar Kalaburagi – 585 103 Karnataka PAN : AAETS6333E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Lakshmi, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel

C D O JAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

condoning the delay in filing the audit report as per provisions contained in section 119(2)(b) of the Act which is still pending for disposal, the case may be remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to wait for the outcome of the order of ld. CIT(E). 9. We have heard the rival submissions

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax, to admit belated applications in Page 12 of 18 Form No. 9A and Form No.10 in respect of AY 2016-17 where such Form No. 9A and Form No.10 are filed after the expiry of the time allowed under the relevant provisions

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24 Iifl Samasta Finance Limited 110/3, Lalbagh Main Road Krishnappa Layout Dcit Vs. Bangalore 560 027 Circle 3(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No :Aaacc4577H Appellant Respondent

delay in filing Form 10DA can only be condoned by the ld. CIT/PCIT u/s IIFL Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 13 119(2)(b) of the Act. Further the ld. DR submitted that as the quantification of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA has not been examined by the AO, the same may be remitted back

BANNANJE GRAHAKARA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 21/09/2016 declaring gross total income of Rs.30,08,301/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2), the total income was nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were

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

c. The learned assessing officer has verified the claim of depreciation for the assessment year 2017-18 and has allowed such claim, thus leading to the inference that the purchase of capita assets was not claimed as application, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) to admit and decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) to admit and decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

C-2, Pentaabase, Ward 2(1)(1), No.5, Basappa Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AACCC 6166C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravish Rao, CA Respondent by : Shri D. Kiran, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals