SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

124 read with Section 127 of the Act and thus the impugned Order liable to be quashed as non-est. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to Ground No.4, the impugned additions of Rs.17,41,238/- on account of cash deposit into bank account

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

3 of the Limitation Act; ( v ) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely

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

3 of the Limitation Act; ( v ) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely

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

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

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

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

3. Dividend – Mutual Fund 36,80,124 – SBI 4. Dividend – UTI 56,08,307 5. Dividend – UTI 9,22,766 Page 4 of 22 Apart from the above, the assessee also received miscellaneous income of Rs.2,55,96,584/- in the form of tender fees of Rs.2,18,24,568/- and other receipts of Rs.37,72,016/-. In the return

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. 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

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

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

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

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

124 days to 128 ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before

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

124 days to 128 ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before

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

124 days to 128 ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before

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

124 days to 128 ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before

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

124 days to 128 ITA Nos.1783 to 1808/Bang/2019 M/s.Programming Research Software Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 days. The details of delay have been tabulated below by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi 73 Taxmann.com 252 before