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

207 ITO Ward-2 Vs. Gadag District Gadag Karnataka Karnataka PAN NO : AIMPA7536M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Vishal S. Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal in ITA No.128/Bang/2023 by the assessee is directed against order

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

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

SMT. RAVISHANKAR SHYLAJA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case

SHREE REVANASIDDESHWARA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT RAMPUR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

207. PAN – ABLAS 2094 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of hearing : 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai, dated

MAROOFALI I SHAIKH ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order passed by the authorities below insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

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

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

RAM AVADHANULU JONNAVITHULA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condoned. Page 6 of 10 9. We further note that the assessee is a salaried employee and employed with Tessolve Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. and Tessolve Inc. during the year and earned income from salary, house property, capital gains, dividend and interest income. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.7,27,493 which was denied by the CPC. The assessee

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)

delay in e- verification of return of income has also been condoned by the IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 19 of 21 CPC on 20.02.2023, by treating the return of income filed on 07.07.2021 as a valid return of income. 7.6 In the case of PCIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

207/-. Accordingly, Order passed by the AO is not erroneous and not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He further submitted that if the arguments of the assessee is not accepted it would change the opinion and would amount to double taxation to the assessee on the same income which is contrary to the provisions of income

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay of 605 days. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and under the Banking Regulations Act, 1939. It has been submitted that, the assessee is in the business of banking and the main object