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

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

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

TAKRAR RANGANATHA RAO NAGASHRE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 92 days in the filing of the statutory appeal despite the appellant

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the want of prosecution. Perusal of the orders of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) is not at all discussed the merits

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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

MOHAMMED FAROOQ,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

section 115BBE at the rate of 60%\nunder the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n\n4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble\nCCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest\nu/s.234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, under the facts and in the\ncircumstances

VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK LTD,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKAMAGALURU

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., The Income Tax, (Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Op. Ward – 1, Court Road, Society Ltd.,), Vs. Chikkamagaluru, Banakal, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru Dist. – 577 101. Chikkamagaluru Dist – 577 113. Pan : Aadfv 8209 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 332 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the assessee society stating therein the reasons for belated

M/S. TILES GALLERY ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVMOGA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s. Tiles Gallery, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.01, S.R.R. Complex, Ward 1 & TPS, Jail Road Main Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. PAN : AAJFT 8407B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra