K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious\nmatter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of\njustice being defeated. As against this, when delay is\ncondoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause\nwould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean

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

Section,\nthe fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that\ninjustice is being done by not following the Division Bench\ndecision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial\njustice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held\nby the Division Bench of this Court

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay is not available under the section. In order to provide relief to such Trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, it is proposed to amend Section 12A of the Act to provide that in a case where a Trust or Institution has been granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, the benefit of Sections

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nITA No.1052/Bang/2023\nITA No.1053/Bang/2023\nITA No.1054/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nAssessment\nYear\nImpugned order\ndated\nITA

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

29,759/-\n99,000/-\niii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted in his\nstatement that he had not raised any bill. He used to write the\nexpenditures on small paper & school note book. It was further\nadmitted that the whole amount were withdrawn by him for the\npurpose of alleged contract work, however the AO noticed that\nwithdrawal of cheques

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nAssessment\nYear\nImpugned order\ndated\nITA

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 23 iii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted in his statement that he had not raised any bill. He used to write the expenditures on small paper & school note book. It was further admitted that the whole amount were withdrawn

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 23 iii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted in his statement that he had not raised any bill. He used to write the expenditures on small paper & school note book. It was further admitted that the whole amount were withdrawn

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\n\nORDER\n\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\n\nPage 2 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\nAppeal

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nITA No.1052/Bang/2023\nITA No.1053/Bang/2023\nITA No.1054/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nAssessment\nYear\nImpugned order\ndated\nITA

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nAssessment\nYear\nImpugned order\ndated\nITA

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nITA No.1052/Bang/2023\nITA No.1053/Bang/2023\nITA No.1054/Bang/2023

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)

29 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nby not accepting the expenses shown by the assessee to earn the said\nexempted income.\n5. Insofar as the assessment year 2019-20 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing the quantum of purchases of tendu leaves for want of\ndocumentation – Rs.1

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\nITA No.1052/Bang/2023\nITA No.1053/Bang/2023\nITA No.1054/Bang/2023

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove