UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

199 after adjusting TDS. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.07.2024 with a delay of 1350 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and the reasons given by the assessee are as under:- “a. It is submitted that the appellant was not aware of the return

SREE JESHTA LAXMI WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

section 199(2)(b) of the Act before the learned Principal CIT for condonation of delay. 9. Even otherwise on the merit

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') in Form 35A, as per section 144C(2) of the Act on 28.04.2023. The DRP issued its directions on 22.12.2023. Some issues were partially decided in favor of the Assessee. 3.10 Post receipt

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FMC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

199 to the ALP of international transactions entered into by the assessee in the period relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee at Rs.8,89,18,657 which included the T.P. Adjustment of Rs.35,82,179 under Section 92CA of the Act vide assessment order passed under Section

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. As far as the merits of the case of the assesee is concerned, the ld counsel or the assessee submitted that ground 4 if adjudicated will render the adjudication of other grounds as academic and prayed for adjudication of ground No.4 which reads as follows:- “4. Ground on applicability of proviso

M/S. RAO & VENKATESULU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

delay is condoned and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 2016- 2017, the return of income was filed on 07.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.9,57,380 and claimed the credit for TDS of 3 ITA No.305/Bang/2021. M/s.Rao

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. As far as merits of the appeal is concerned, the facts are that the assessee who is a dealer in sale of bakery and confectionary products, filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.9.09 declaring an income of Rs.29,07,340. In the course of assessment proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. UMESH ROHRA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra No.2, M/S. Umesh Electro Marketix Ito Ward-5(2)(1) G.R. Lane Sp Road Cross Vs. Bangalore Bengaluru 560 002 Karnataka Pan No.Acopr3873J Appellant Respondent Co No.4/Bang/2024 (Arising Out Ita No.1106/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra Vs. Ito Ward-5(2)(1) Bengaluru 560 002 Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent By : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R.

section 199 r.w.s 36BA is applied, then the TDS credit shall be allowed in subsequent year, on the facts and circumstances of the case. e. Without further prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has appreciated the proposition of the respondent that making addition in one year without corresponding adjustment in the preceding or succeeding year would result in unjust enrichment

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

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

MURTOOZ ALI KHAN,MYSURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaransp No.266/Bang/2019 (In Ita No.2045/Bang/2019) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) & Shri Murtooz Ali Khan, No.96, 8Th Cross, Shivaji Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysore-570 007. … Petitioner/ Pan:Acipa 7354 D Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. … Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. We heard the parties and perused the record. It is the contention of the assessee that the employer, being the deductor of TDS, has not remitted the amount to the credit of the Income-tax Department. The CBDT instruction No.275 referred above, reads as under: “Grievances have been received

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. 6. The assessee is a charitable and educational trust established in the year 1992 by Trust Deed Dt.20.5.1992. The assessee was granted a Registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide orderdt.16.9.1992. The assessee was also granted approval under Section