INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

47 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\nby the assessee before us in Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Court after considering the arguments, held as under:\n“9.2 The CBDT, with introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme [as e- Assessment Scheme] in the year 2019, has issued Notification dated 13-8- 2020 classifying the assessment cases

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 FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 41 days caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act with the main object to Manufacture & sale of Cancer Medicine. The assessee has an objective of constructing a Big Cancer Hospital to provide

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 and other judgments of the Supreme Court, it was prayed that the delay in filing the CO may be condoned. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the view that there was sufficient and reasonable cause in belated filing of the cross objections since

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

v. Mst. Katigi (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has given guidelines that courts should have a liberal and practical approach in exercising the power of condonation of appeal, the context was dismissal as time barred for 4 days. (Emphasis supplied) 7.12 In the same case, the Apex Court had also held that doctrine of Equality

SHREE SUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE ,THOKUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

47,846/- 4. The AO in the assessment proceeding found that the bank deposit is not the application of receipt for charitable purposes nor it directly linked to charitable activity. 5. The AO found that the assessee has not applied its receipt to the extent of 85% for it objective. The assessee also not filed Form 10B suggesting that

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act of Rs.21,15,027/- ( 17,67,740+3,47,287). The assessee filed an appeal on 15.02.2023, resulting in a delay of 156 days ITA No.705, 706 & 707/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 19 due to the reason that notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, assessment order was sent to the email id: a1itclients4@gmail.com, which belonged

YADAGERE SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 158 days

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

V. RESPONDENT(S) 1. 1355/Bang/2024 2011-12 2. 2264/Bang/2024 2013-14 Shri G K Ravi, 3. 2265/Bang/2024 2014-15 Gottegere, 4. 2266/Bang/2024 2015-16 Uttarahalli Hobli, 5. 2267/Bang/2024 2016-17 Bengaluru – 560 083. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(4), Bangalore. 6. 2268/Bang/2024 2017-18 PAN: ADFPR 1176C 7. 2269/Bang/2024 2018-19 8. 1159/Bang/2024 2019-20 Appellant