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

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

199/- 6 The Learned Appellate Commissioner, Hubbali erred in disregarding the fact that the impugned income of Rs.5,94,276/-belonged to the Estate of the deceased father of the Appellant and as such the same ought to have been assessed to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives of the deceased father of the Appellant as mandated

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

199/- 6 The Learned Appellate Commissioner, Hubbali erred in disregarding the fact that the impugned income of Rs.5,94,276/-belonged to the Estate of the deceased father of the Appellant and as such the same ought to have been assessed to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives of the deceased father of the Appellant as mandated

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

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

199] has held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient for re-opening of the case unless there existed some other prima facie evidence to warrant reopening. [vi] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal V. S. P. Chaliha And Others [79 ITR 603 ] has held that : "Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must

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. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and distinguished by the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

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

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

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