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

1 of 19 on 4 June 2025 whereas the order of the learned CIT – A was received on 31st of July 2024. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for both these assessment years and also filing an affidavit showing the clause for delay in filing of the appeal. The affidavit was filed by secretary

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member The appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-13, Bengaluru, dated 9.10.2018 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

131. The decisive factor is the adequacy of the cause shown, not the length of delay. What is critical is whether the party seeking condonation acted with reasonable diligence during the prescribed period and whether the reasons advanced demonstrate a genuine inability to file within time. Thus, the test is qualitative rather than quantitative. 132. This

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

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

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

section 154, the action of the AO in rejecting the rectification application was to be upheld. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As per CBDT Circular No.7/2018, the Commissioner could condone the delay in filing Form 10 electronically with the department. While entertaining such application, the Commissioner is required to satisfy that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1-4-2021, were issued under the unamended section 148, due to bona fide mistake in view of the subsequent extension of time by various notifications under the Enabling Act (TOLA, 2020). (II) The notices ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore dated 25.3.2024. The assessee raised following grounds: 1. “The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] - 15, Bengaluru, under Section 250 of the Act dated 25/03/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Bengaluru-6 dated 18.1.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and against

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30.11.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds:- The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, for the Asst Year 2020-210, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, is contrary

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

d. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in appreciating that the HUF was not required to obtain a PAN as the only source of income was agricultural in nature and the source of income could not have been doubted, to make deposits, of Rs. 15,38,600/-on the facts and circumstances of the case. e. Without prejudice