M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor

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

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIPTUR vs. SRIUDAYARAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

201, Karnataka. PAN : AAWFS 0981 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate Orders passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Years

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

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

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

201. PAN : AAAJP0326N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 Date of Hearing : 17.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 13.03.2019 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR vs. SRI UDAYRAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

201, Karnataka. PAN : AAWFS 0981 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate Orders passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 16(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. These appeals are filed by the assessee after a delay of 31 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 16(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. These appeals are filed by the assessee after a delay of 31 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

201(1A) of the Act on non-compliance of provisions of Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

201/- and a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs was disallowed as expenses, not laid out for purposes of business u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before the DRP. The DRP vide order dated 17/11/2015 directed the Ld.TPO to determine arm’s length price is of the international transactions by following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

201) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust (1992) 198 ITR 511 (Cal.). The assessee further submitted that the CBDT M/s. Mulki Sundar Ram Shetty Nagar Ayyappa Swamy Temple Trust, Bangalore Page 4 of 7 has issued a Circular No.10 (F.No.197/55/2018) dated 22.5.2019, condoning the delay

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

delay in submission should not disqualify the assessee from claiming the exemption, especially when the form was filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. Moreover, the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of ACIT v. Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad (reported in 210 Taxmann 28), held that where an assessee has filed Form

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE [BBMP],BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER [TDS], WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereby confirming the orders of ITO (TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.98 & 99/Bang/2020 Page 2