THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on or before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June 9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the\npetitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on\nor before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June\n9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the\npetitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on\nor before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June\n9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section 264 and it was rejected on July 21, 2006. Thus, the\npetitioner had a cause of action with reference to the assessment year 2003-04 on\nor before March 31, 2010 which is the outer limit in terms of the circular dated June\n9, 2015. The petitioner has slept over the matter from July

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

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

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

227 days from the date of receipt of CIT(Appeals)’s order on 7.9.2021, the Supreme Court by orders dated 23.3.2020, 27.4.2021 has extended the period of limitation from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 due to COVID-19. Therefore the effective date of the appeals being time barred are for 103 days from 30.5.2022 to 9.9.2022. The assessee filed an affidavit from

PIVOTREE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIDGE SGI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

227 days from the date of receipt of CIT(Appeals)’s order on 7.9.2021, the Supreme Court by orders dated 23.3.2020, 27.4.2021 has extended the period of limitation from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 due to COVID-19. Therefore the effective date of the appeals being time barred are for 103 days from 30.5.2022 to 9.9.2022. The assessee filed an affidavit from

M/S. SHIRLAL MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BETHANGADY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

section 80AC of the Act which are applicable for assessment year 2018-19 and onwards, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 80P of the Act. However, there is no dispute that Principal CIT Goa vide order dated 7.2.2021 issued order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act on 19.2.2021 condoning the delay of filing the return

M/S PERFECTA LIFESTYLE ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

227 day being condoned in filing the present appeal. From the affidavit filed of the erstwhile authorised representative for assessee, it is clear that the delay cannot be attributed to assessee and in the interest of Justice and for principle that substantive right condonation should not be denied by technicalities. We therefore condone the delay in filing the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.MCML SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 51 days on the part of Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit its appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 for consideration / adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The assessee, a company, engaged in the business of providing signaling systems solutions

M/S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2005-06

section, meaning thereby, all income of charitable trust is taxable except to the extent provided in sec.11. In view of the above, the concept of “income” has to be understood in terms of sec.2(24) and other provisions of the Act. Hence, the view expressed by the AO that the “Gross receipts excluding corpus donation” shall constitute the income

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

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

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