EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

234A was not leviable. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C: 12. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Each one of the above grounds is without prejudice to the other and without prejudice to the grounds of appeal taken earlier. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.24.12.2009. There was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dt.22.5.2012, holding it as non- maintainable on technical grounds, by not condoning

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

234A", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report is fatal to the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the condonation

REBECCA POOJA DSOUZA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BENGALURU

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

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["250", "36(1)(va)", "143(1)", "143(1)(iv)", "143(1)(a)", "37", "234A

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

condoned the delay by exercising power conferred under section 249(3) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has surrendered the PAN, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A

PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 234A of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

condoning the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal and in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the appellant negligence under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The ld.CIT(A) failed

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, Page 3 of 7 period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order

M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

section 234A & C of the Act.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld.AR that there is delay of 1178 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR has filed the application seeking condonation

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

delay in filing From No. 10 as per the CBDT Circular No. 30/2019, dated 17/12/2019, as a natural corollary even the return of income filed by the appellant is also deemed to have been condoned. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the non-filing of the return within

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

SMT. JAYA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

condoning the delay for filing the appeal, which was due to reasonable cause of wrong professional advise and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 5 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.33

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which under the facts ITA Nos. 2795 to 2797/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 and circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend and delete anyof the above grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other

SMT. VISHALAKSHI DEVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which under the facts ITA Nos. 2795 to 2797/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 and circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend and delete anyof the above grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other