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

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

condonation of delay, if the assessee prefers appeal before him on DDT liability of the year under consideration. 4.15 In view of the foregoing discussions, we reject the additional ground raised by the assessee on DDT liability. 5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee company is engaged in the business of designing, manufacture

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

condoning the delay. He dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case. He further submitted that the assessee is situated in a very remote area where there is no professional advice available and there is also lack of staff for proper handling of income tax matters. The assessee is discharging huge task of implementing various basic amenities

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

condoning the delay. He dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case. He further submitted that the assessee is situated in a very remote area where there is no professional advice available and there is also lack of staff for proper handling of income tax matters. The assessee is discharging huge task of implementing various basic amenities

YASHODA PUTTARAJU JAYANTHKUMAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The dismissal of the appeal on delay has resulted in collection of taxes on income which has not been earned by the appellant, thus, defeating the basic tenets of the taxation law, on the facts

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeals by the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purpose while appeal for AY 2013-14 & 2014-

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

delay in filing the appeals is accordingly condoned. 10. As far as the merits of the various issues raised in Appeals relating to AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concerned, the common issue is with regard to treating interest income earned on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The deduction calmed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

GLOBAL EDGE SOFTWARE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALROE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and proceeded to dispose of the same on merits. 6. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in recomputing the disallowance under section 14A at Rs.4,02,827/- without appreciating the fact that

NMS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

Section 10A claim on the ground of non-production of invoices. Accordingly, AO passed final order on 28th October, 2011 making the adjustments as mentioned in the table herein above. Being aggrieved by the above impugned order of DRP/AO, assessee has preferred this appeal before the ITAT. 3. Condonation of delay: The appeal was filed with a delay

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay in filing of appeal is condoned. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing cleaning services for corporate sectors. Survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 [‘the Act’ for short] were conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 21/06/2012. During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(TDS), BANGALORE vs. M/S DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS (P)LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay in filing of appeal is condoned. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing cleaning services for corporate sectors. Survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 [‘the Act’ for short] were conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 21/06/2012. During the course

URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED., ,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMANAGARA

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

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

condone the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee filed their return of income declaring a Nil income and claimed a deduction

SMT. NANDINI B LINGEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 10 4. Facts and briefs borne out from the record with regard to additions are that out of the claim of Sundry Creditors in the balance sheet at Rs.2,60,98,778/- the assessee had submitted confirmation before the AO of only Rs.1

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

194 Taxman 477 (Ker) has held as follows:- “4. From Schedule B of the sale deed which gives the value of goodwill, we notice that the trademark or the logo and the name of the hospital are specifically covered by it. In fact, without resorting to the residuary entry appellant-assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the name, trade

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. The Metropolitan Co-Operative Housing Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2)(1), No.21, Grund Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. Vidhana Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaaat 0990 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2023

condone the delay of 48 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Page 2 of 7 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a house building co-operative society. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, assessee filed the return of income declaring Nil income, after claiming deduction amounting

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 16(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. As far as merits of the appeal is concerned, the facts are that the assessee bank paid during the FY 2012-13 a sum of Rs.60,67,388 being interest on deposit to Karnataka Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board. The assessee did not deduct tax at source at the time

SRI BRAMARAMBA PATTINA SOUHARDA SHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,MASKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

condone the delay of 10 days, the Registry found that as per the provisions, there is no such delay and therefore we are not adjudicating the said application. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the interest income earned by the assessee is out of the statutory investments made in the fixed deposits with co-operative banks