SHREE NARADAMUNI SWAMY SEVA TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2020-21

section 143(1). Hence the action of the Assessing Officer of CPC is bad in law. 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of the law, the Hon'ble CIT, APPEAL, ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant Trust in limine without condoning the delay of 195 days in filing

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

M/S. THE FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,GADAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

195 days has occurred and appellant submits the delay is unintentional and for the bonafide reasons stated above. 4. Appellant humbly submits that, Appellant has good case on merits and the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional for the bona fide reasons and for the reasons which were beyond appellant's control. We humbly pray this Hon'ble tribunal

AVESTHAGEN LTD. vs. DY DIT,

In the result, both these appeals are

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

Section 201(1) and the demand of interest u/s 201(1A) was filed within time. 5. Since the appeal is filed only in pursuant of the directions of the Hon'ble tribunal, the appeallant pray that the delay, if any, in filing of this appeal petition may pleased to be condoned and heard along with Appeal No: ITA No 972/B/10

M/S. EL MEASURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

condoned delay in filing of present appeal. 5.2 The only issue raised before us, is in respect of disallowance made under section 40(A)(ia) of the Act. It has been submitted that sum of Rs.10,64,075/- was paid exhibition charges to two nonresidents for event held outside India in South Africa and UAE. Ld.AR submitted that, payments were

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)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

TIRUMALARAO P MOKASHI,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

195 in civil appeal No.1704 of 2992 dated 27th February 2002 and submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the issue with regard to the sufficient cause for delay held as under: “12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served

M/S C CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195(1) r.w.s. 206AA of the Act, since the deductee did not have a PAN as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for short deduction of tax and interest was levied thereon. 4. The assessee submits that these orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act by the TDS-CPC were never served