K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246A of the Act within the stipulated time as isaged in the provisions of the Act. a. It is submitted that, the appellant received notice for recovery of the outstanding demands issued by the Income-tax department dated 11.11.2022, through post. In the said recovery notice was issued by the department b. The Appellant filed a stay application before

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

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

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

1 to 3 would contend that the payment of interest by the employer in case of belated payment is statutorily leviable and a specified rate having been provided, the authority has no discretion and, therefore, it is only a matter of computation and there cannot be any challenge to it. Be it noted, it was canvassed by the said respondents

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Muthaiah Sannasurayya, Vs. DCIT, 1762/13, Dhari, 1st Stage, Central Circle – 1(3), 2nd Cross, Opp: St. Johns High School, Bengaluru. Shivakumar Swamy Badavane, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : BEXPS

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Muthaiah Sannasurayya, Vs. DCIT, 1762/13, Dhari, 1st Stage, Central Circle – 1(3), 2nd Cross, Opp: St. Johns High School, Bengaluru. Shivakumar Swamy Badavane, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : BEXPS

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Muthaiah Sannasurayya, Vs. DCIT, 1762/13, Dhari, 1st Stage, Central Circle – 1(3), 2nd Cross, Opp: St. Johns High School, Bengaluru. Shivakumar Swamy Badavane, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : BEXPS

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

b) any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Thus the grievance of the assessee on DDT liability falls under different class of liabilities mentioned in sec. 246A of the Act. Further, Sec. 246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

b) any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Thus the grievance of the assessee on DDT liability falls under different class of liabilities mentioned in sec. 246A of the Act. Further, Sec. 246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

b) any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Thus the grievance of the assessee on DDT liability falls under different class of liabilities mentioned in sec. 246A of the Act. Further, Sec. 246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that

SOCIETE GENERALE GLOBAL SOLUTION CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

b) The acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c), and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a). (1A) For the purposes of processing of returns under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

246A of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, a remedy of appeal is provided against an intimation under section 200A(1) of the Act with effect from 01-07-2012. It is fairly not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that if the appeals had been filed on or after 01-07-2012, the appeals were maintainable

ARECA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Areca Trust, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), No.23, Nadathur Place, 8Th Main, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Vs. Delhi. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aafta 7784 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

b) the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating upon the ground of appeal no. 3 raised before him in this regard. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act does not survive after an order

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

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

b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only Rs. 44,04,25,557/- has been disallowed and added back in the total income instead of disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune of Rs. 8,03,98,978/- resulting

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

b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only Rs. 44,04,25,557/- has been disallowed and added back in the total income instead of disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune of Rs. 8,03,98,978/- resulting

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

246A of the Act and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67. The decision sought by the Appellant from the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was: • Whether FTC can be denied for delay in filing of Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act, in view of several

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8th Cross, Vidyanagara TipturHO, Tiptur ITO Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur PAN NO :AJVPR7385P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

condonation of delay which is as under: “The abovenamed appellant/petitioner most respectfully submits as follows: 1. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 27.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited