SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

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

3. We have considered the submission and are of the view that there been no negligence or want of diligence on the part of assessee and the reasons for filing the appeal belatedly are found to be reasonable and with sufficient cause. Hence the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. As far as merits of the appeal

VIJAYA BANK LTD.,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

M/S VIJAYA BANK LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD , DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

3 persons involved in this case viz., the assessee, his CA Shri Sharanagouda Patil and Shri Prakash R. Badiger, Advocate, who are required to explain the delay. They are not illiterate and they very well know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 17/02/2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC belatedly along with the petition for condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. The ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by holding that the assessee’s appeal is not maintainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit is filed by the Revenue stating that " I Shri. Santosh Bheemaiah, IRS son of Sri. Bheemaiah.B aged 42 about years, Deputy

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

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

section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays for leave to add, modify, delete, or introduce additional 5 General Ground grounds of appeal at any time before the Appeal is disposed of. Total Tax Effect Rs. 1,64,64,910 Page 3 of 9 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 70 days

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

M/S. MANJUNATHESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The appellant denies himself liable to be taxed on disallowance of Rs.6,89,167/- as assessed by the learned CIT(A) as against the return income of Rs. NIL under the facts 2 ITA No.2238/Bang/2019. M/s.Manjunatheshwara

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

S.K.GOLDSMITHS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1(2), MANGALURU

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. S. K. Goldsmiths Industrial Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2), Vishwasoudha, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore. Kottara Chowki, Mangalore – 575 006. Pan : Aabas 4056 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram V. Roa, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2023

condone the delay of four days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the part of the disallowance made by the AO under section 80P of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from

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

condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). 9. We have noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has also adjudicated the issues on merits. The ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions to submit that the non-furnishing of copies of Form No.15G and Form No.15H to the Commissioner of Income tax would not make