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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condoned the delay.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "153D", "274", "271(1)(c)", "271AAB", "154", "132", "246A", "139(4)", "5 of the limitation

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

246A of the Act is already filed against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143 [3] r. w.s. 153A of the Act which is pending adjudication. the impugned order of penalty passed wider section 271 [1][c] oldie Act, dated 20/09/2013 is dependent on the outcome of the appellate proceedings against the impugned order of assessment passed under

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

246A of the Act is already filed against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143 [3] r. w.s. 153A of the Act which is pending adjudication. the impugned order of penalty passed wider section 271 [1][c] oldie Act, dated 20/09/2013 is dependent on the outcome of the appellate proceedings against the impugned order of assessment passed under

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

246A of the Act is already filed against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143 [3] r. w.s. 153A of the Act which is pending adjudication. the impugned order of penalty passed wider section 271 [1][c] oldie Act, dated 20/09/2013 is dependent on the outcome of the appellate proceedings against the impugned order of assessment passed under

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

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

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 processing of returns with a view to expeditiously determining the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the assessee as required under the said sub-section. (1B) Save

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

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

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

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

C) No. 13410/2012) decided on 18-10-2013 had held in paragraph 17 as under:- 17. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 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

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

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 any or all of the grounds

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.558 & 559/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s. Vydehi Super Speciality Hospital Limited 17, Sankey Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore 560 020 Central Circle-2(1) Bangalore PAN No.AAACC9494R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.558 & 559/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s. Vydehi Super Speciality Hospital Limited 17, Sankey Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore 560 020 Central Circle-2(1) Bangalore PAN No.AAACC9494R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date

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

condoning the delay, if any. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter, is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re- consideration of the appeals on merits without going into the question of maintainability”. Vide the above order of the Hon’ble High Court the matter was remanded to the records

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

1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing

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

c -: gyred by Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) himself in the subsequent paragraph. Ground No. 3: Appellant had approached the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in an appeal and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating in his Order that the Appellant needs

M/S. TEEKAYS FURNITURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

C- 3(1). Bangalore. The AR stated that he will check and file the copy of order u/s 200A in this office on 28-03-2019 itself However, no such order was filed. It is a fact that the order u/s 200A is passed online and hence it is sent immediately online to the deductor (assessee). In view of this

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. 4.12 In the case of Genpact India P Ltd, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that the additional