ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR vs. M/S THE RAICHUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , RAICHUR

In the result, the assessee's Cross Objections for Assessment Year

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

210 days delay in filing the C.O and that even if the delay is condoned there would be no loss to the Revenue, as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law will be collected. We, therefore, being of the opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of delay; accordingly condone the delay in filing this C.O. before

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

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

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

condone the delay by exercising powers under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.3i,66,632/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts and circumstances

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in filing of the return of income, the Central Processing Centre is correct in not allowing the Assessee the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as return of income is not filed within due date. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative

MAMATHA MAHESH SHETTY,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (hereafter the Act) dated 06-01-2025 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereafter the learned CIT(A)) at National Faceless Appeal Centre-NFAC, for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The present appeal is filed with a delay of 210 days. The assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation

M/S SCRIPS N SCROLL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is admitted for hearing and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :- 3.1 The assessee company filed its return

CHARVAKA SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

210.\nPAN: AAAJC0136B\nAPPELLANT\nThe Income Tax\nOfficer,\nWard – 1,\nPuttur.\nVs.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\nSmt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri Parithivel, JCIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n01-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n02-01-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeal arises out of the order dated 13.09.2023 passed\nby NFAC, Delhi

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

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

210/- being adjustment in the impugned order of intimation passed under section 143[1] of the Act were made by the learned assessing officer. 5. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved by the order of intimation passed under section 143 [1] of the Act dated 16/09/2020, passed by the Assessing Officer had preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Commissioner

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

210/- being adjustment in the impugned order of intimation passed under section 143[1] of the Act were made by the learned assessing officer. 5. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved by the order of intimation passed under section 143 [1] of the Act dated 16/09/2020, passed by the Assessing Officer had preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Commissioner

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

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

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

210. Puttur. PAN: AACAK 4728Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Krishna Kantila, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 Page 2 of 14 O R D E R 1. Both the appeal captioned above involves identical facts and therefore dealt with this common order. 2. ITA No 104/ bang/2025

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

210. Puttur. PAN: AACAK 4728Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Krishna Kantila, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 Page 2 of 14 O R D E R 1. Both the appeal captioned above involves identical facts and therefore dealt with this common order. 2. ITA No 104/ bang/2025