SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the failure or delay in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and also submitted that jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and as such an issue can be raised

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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

condone any delay. (Ground 10.1 for AY 2019-20 and\nsimilar ground in Ground 7.2 for AY 2018-19)\n2.\nAfter hearing the aforesaid 3 grounds, the Hon'ble Bench directed the\nLearned Department Representative (DR) file his objection on the\nPage 49 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\naforesaid grounds by 30.01.2025. The Learned DR accordingly has\nfiled

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)

condone any delay. (Ground 10.1 for AY 2019-20 and\nsimilar ground in Ground 7.2 for AY 2018-19)\n2.\nAfter hearing the aforesaid 3 grounds, the Hon'ble Bench directed the\nLearned Department Representative (DR) file his objection on the\nPage 49 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\naforesaid grounds by 30.01.2025. The Learned DR accordingly has\nfiled

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. 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

condone any delay. (Ground 10.1 for AY 2019-20 and\nsimilar ground in Ground 7.2 for AY 2018-19)\n\n2.\nAfter hearing the aforesaid 3 grounds, the Hon'ble Bench directed the\nLearned Department Representative (DR) file his objection on the\n\nPage 48 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\naforesaid grounds by 30.01.2025. The Learned DR accordingly

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the extent which is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

SHRI. SANDEEP KUMAR SURESH ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal, without appreciating the fact that the said period was covered under 2. COVID 19 exclusion and Hon' ble Supreme Rs. 11,54,301/- Court of India, Suo Moto had extended the limitation by excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from the period of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. In all these appeals, the assessee is contesting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals in limine, without condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him. The assessee had prayed before Ld CIT(A) that the fee levied u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the belated filing

M/S. PROGRAMMING RESEARCH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. In all these appeals, the assessee is contesting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals in limine, without condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him. The assessee had prayed before Ld CIT(A) that the fee levied u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the belated filing