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

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

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

Condonation of delay if any. The Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to hold that the AO did not have any information except information received from the Investigation Wing. 3. The Ground No.3 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the statement

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

II A Block, 5th Main, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and Chartered Accountant (CA) by profession do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as under: 1. That I am a Chartered Accountant (CA) by profession and extended my professional services to Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy, resident of No.32, Mathai Building, Officers Model Colony, Prashanth Nagara, T Dasarahalli, Bangalore, who is assessed to Income Tax under

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

condone Page 2 of 10 the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), ("CIT(A)" for short), is opposed to the applicable laws and facts

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

II) Penalty appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2018-19: The penalty orders were passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the act for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 to 2016-17. Further for A.Y. 2017-18 to 2018-19, the penalty orders were passed u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271AAB

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

SOCIETE GENERALE GLOBAL SOLUTION CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction; (b) The acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii) Addition of Rs.3,73,057 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Later, the Draft Assessment Order (DAO) was passed on 30.09.2021, wherein the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act was not incorporated. In the draft assessment order, the A.O. had incorporated the T.P. adjustment IT(TP)A No.110/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 9 proposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

143(3) of The Income-tax Act , 1961 [ The Act ] for assessment year 2017-18 was partly allowed. 2. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the appellate order and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “ a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law, to hold the view

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

delay had been condoned. Page 7 of 18 Anyhow, these aspects could have been looked into if the appeal was against order u/s 143(1), but for rectification purposes the assessing officer could not have taken into account these aspects being brought to his knowledge". 16. The additional ground taken in appeal was also dismissed for the stated reason that

M/S. THE RAJAJI NAGAR HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

ii) of the Act disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the assessee has not filed the return of income within the prescribed due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice under section 143(2) dated 22nd

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

ii) not served upon him in time; or (iii) served upon him in an improper manner. In other words, once the deeming fiction comes into operation, the assessee is precluded from raising a challenge about the service of a notice, service within time or service in an improper manner. The proviso to Section 292 BB of the Act, however, carves

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

ii) not served upon him in time; or (iii) served upon him in an improper manner. In other words, once the deeming fiction comes into operation, the assessee is precluded from raising a challenge about the service of a notice, service within time or service in an improper manner. The proviso to Section 292 BB of the Act, however, carves

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

ii) not served upon him in time; or (iii) served upon him in an improper manner. In other words, once the deeming fiction comes into operation, the assessee is precluded from raising a challenge about the service of a notice, service within time or service in an improper manner. The proviso to Section 292 BB of the Act, however, carves

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

II) Penalty appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2018-19: The penalty orders were passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the act for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 to 2016-17. Further for A.Y. 2017-18 to 2018-19, the penalty orders were passed u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271AAB