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

delay by way of condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act on 05.03.2015 to verify the compliance of TDS ITA No.931 & 932/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 7 provisions on certain payments as per Receipt & Payment account which is incorporated by the AO in his order. The assessee is a Gram Panchayat (Town Municipal Corporation), a State Govt. Organization, carrying out the main functions of Government Schemes like Ashraya

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act on 05.03.2015 to verify the compliance of TDS ITA No.931 & 932/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 7 provisions on certain payments as per Receipt & Payment account which is incorporated by the AO in his order. The assessee is a Gram Panchayat (Town Municipal Corporation), a State Govt. Organization, carrying out the main functions of Government Schemes like Ashraya

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. 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)

133A was not authorised to administer an\noath and record a sworn statement.\n17.8.\nWithout prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making the impugned addition merely on the\nmistaken statements of Sri. Nagendra Pai, without any\ncogent evidence and without providing an opportunity to\ncross-examine Mr. Ashok Shenoy, manager of M/s. Shenoy\n& Co. or other managers

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file a return of income within 5 days from date of issue of notice. Due to the paucity of time allowed in notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessee filed a letter

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

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. 6. The assessee is a charitable and educational trust established in the year 1992 by Trust Deed Dt.20.5.1992. The assessee was granted a Registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide orderdt.16.9.1992. The assessee was also granted approval under Section

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

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n\n5. 1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

133A, as income\nunder the Profit and Gains from Business & profession\ninstead of treating it as \"Unexplained investments u/s 69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and proceed for hearing on merits. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authorities erred in holding that the assessee could not transact in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and further erred in treating the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained credits

SMT C I INDIRA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was conducted at the assessee's business premises on 3.11.2014; in the course of which it was noticed that the assessee and her son had jointly invested in the purchase and renovation of a building to be used as a convention hall. The difference in the purchase consideration for building

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

133A of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source u/s 194A of the Act from the interest payment made by it on term deposits in some cases. In Page 2 of 19 some other cases, it was noticed that the assessee had deducted TDS @ 10% from interest payment made to some

SHRI. SANNAPPA RAMAPPA,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 133(6) of the Act to cross-verify the information before concluding the assessment proceedings, thereby vitiating the assessment. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disregarding the Appellant's submission that they acted solely as an agent in the property sales. The addition should have been limited to the XI commission of Rs. 10,000/- per site, totalling

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

133A, as income\nunder the Profit and Gains from Business & profession\ninstead of treating it as \"Unexplained investments u/s 69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay. The ld.Pr.CIT has pointed out that the AO has ignored the issue which was the subject matter of the survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act and the AO should have examined in detail with regard to the valuation of the cost of construction carried out by the assessee for hospital building. The matter

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT