MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

159,161 and 162 of the Act and there the impugned order is liable to set aside 50,2267- 7 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B even when the Appellant is not liable for the same. 2,02,4157- Total tax effect (see note below) 2. At the outset, it was observed that

MANOHARS CATERING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay w.r.t. this appeal and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. We Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) passed an appellate order dated 30.01.2018 under section

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA MAILANAYAKANAHALLI,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

159 days. 6. As far as the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act is concerned, the plea of the assessee was that it was waiting for the outcome of the application under section 154 of the Act and therefore did not file the appeal in time. As far as the delay

SULOCHANA ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

MR. SHIVAPRASAD URS,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10

159. PAN: ABHPH4416P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 23.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bangalore dated

SMT KUSHALAPPA SAVITRI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to sustaining addition u/s. 68 of the Act as follows:- (i) Unexplained cash deposit 1,00,00,000 (ii) Advance received received from Shri Venkatesh 75,00,000 Gowda. (iii) Advance received from Shri Rajanna

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

LATE. SRI. MADAIAH MANJUNATH L/H BY SRI SACHIDANANDA SWAMY & ORS. ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), BENGLAURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2015-16

159 of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee died without marriage after executing the Will and during pendency of the Appeal. Hence, the CIT/NFAC ought to have remanded the matter with a direction to reprocess the same after bringing the Legal Representatives on record. 4. That, framing assessment or reassessment proceedings on a non- existent person

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee stands admitted to be adjudicated on issues raised. Page 6 of 17 7. Ground No.2: The Ld.AR at the outset stressed on ground 2 wherein the jurisdiction of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, has been challenged

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order