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)

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\n3\n[2023] 155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note\nwhich reads below Section\n14A of the Income

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

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\nPage 38 of 74\n3\n[2023] 155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head

MUNIVENKATAPPA SHIVANNA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Munivenkatappa Shivanna, Vs. Acit, Prop: Maruthi Manunath Travels, Circle – 7(2)(1), No.208/1, Idasarahalli Kempegowda Bengaluru. Main Road, Dasarahalli Near Aswath Katte, Bengaluru City – 560 027. Pan : Bixps 0619 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Adam Kajabee, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.09.2017 Of Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Running Vehicles On Hire. The Assessee Paid A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 As Interest On Loans Borrowed From A Non-Banking Finance Company M/S.Cholmandalam Investments & Finance Co.Ltd. The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source As Was Required By The Provisions Of Sec.194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act"] The Ao Therefore Added A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 To The Total Income Of The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source By Invoking The Page 2 Of 7 Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act, Which Lays Down That Where Tax Is Deductible On A Payment & Tax Is Not So Deducted, Then The Sum In Respect Of Which Tax Is Not Deducted At Source, If It Is Claimed As Expenditure In Computing Income From Business, The Same Will Not Be Allowed As A Deduction, While Computing The Income From Business. The Ao Accordingly Made The Impugned Disallowance & Addition To The Total Income U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

163 taxman 55 in the context of section 201(1) and 201(1A), wherein it was held that, where deductee (recipient of income) has already declared income / paid taxes on amounts received from deductor, the department could not subject the same to double taxation. Page 4 of 7 6. The CIT(A) agreed with the stand taken by the assessee

KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY MS KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS),BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BGL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 of 2023, wherein\nthe Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that in the absence\nof DIN any communication, order should be treated invalid. In this\nregard it is important to note that all other issues raised by the assessee\nincluding DIN are open and we are not going to decide any of it at this\nstage

RAMA KESHAVDAS PAI ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

163 / CIT (A)-1 / BR / 15-16 thereby rejecting the appeal petition filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8 (4), ITA Nos.756 to 758/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 9 Bengaluru under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act declining to condone the delay

SHREE RAMA KESHAVDAS PAI ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

163 / CIT (A)-1 / BR / 15-16 thereby rejecting the appeal petition filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8 (4), ITA Nos.756 to 758/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 9 Bengaluru under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act declining to condone the delay

SHREE RAMA KESHAVADAS PAI,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

163 / CIT (A)-1 / BR / 15-16 thereby rejecting the appeal petition filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8 (4), ITA Nos.756 to 758/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 9 Bengaluru under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act declining to condone the delay

KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS ( PRESENTLY KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

163 of 2023, wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of DIN any communication, order should be treated invalid. In this regard it is important to note that all other issues raised by the assessee including DIN are open and we are not going to decide any of it at this stage

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

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\n\nPage 35 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n3\n[2023] 155\nTaxmann.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note

MR. MUPPURI DAMODAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The 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 Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Before us the learned A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of s. 249(4) of the Act,. The ld. CIT(A) on the other hand

MR. MITHESH KUMAR JAYANTILAL,MANGALORE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Mithesh Kumar Jayantilal, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 103, 130/30, Steel Centre Central Circle – 1, Building, Near Urdu School, Vs. Mangalore. Kasaigalli, Bunder, Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 001. Pan : Afhpj 0632 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satya Prakash Singh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Nishi Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this appeal. In the said affidavit

LATE ADIREDDY RAMA REDDY L/R BY T N JAYALAKSHMI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

section 54F would be applicable to one residential house only. The AO was of the view that the assessee had two dwelling units and therefore they are not entitled for the benefit u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO made the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee. As against the said order

M/S. DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 4. It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the objection of the A.O. and of learned CIT (A) is this that the activities of the assessee are not education and relief to poor. In this regard, he submitted that the activity report of the assessee is available on pages

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the extent which is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

condoning the delay, if any. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter, is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re- consideration of the appeals on merits without going into the question of maintainability”. Vide the above order of the Hon’ble High Court the matter was remanded to the records

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction was carried out by the builder. 16. Assessee in the synopsis filed before this Tribunal gave details of date wise payments, made to the builder for acquisition of property as under: Payments made prior to sale of original asset a) Date Amount