MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

248 days have to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

248 days have to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

248 days have to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section

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.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act, after setting off brought forward losses against the profits of eligible unit. 10. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

248 ITR 139). A debatable issue cannot be decided by the assessing officer under the guise of making an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) (Coates v DCIT 214 ITR 498, CIT v Shikhar Chand Jain 263 ITR 221, CIT v Manubhai M Patel 296 ITR 143). 20. Thus, the scope of section 143(1) is restricted to adjustment

M/S SOLITAIRE BUILD TECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), O/O ADDITIONAL CIT RANGE-6 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Solitaire Build Tech Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Osd), No.349, 25Th Cross, 9Th Main, O/O Additional Cit, R-6, Bsk Ii Stage, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 070. Pan : Aagcs 0048 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rama Subramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Priyadarshini Mishra, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.07.2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.27,94,345/-; i.e., at the income declared as per the original return of income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2018. ORDER ON PETITION

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

METRIC STREAM INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act took view that severe financial crisis would be reasonable cause for condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee also drawn our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Jayanti Vs. ACIT 2015 75 Taxmann.com 248

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n\n5. 1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

SMT. KASHAVVA S RANGARADDIYAVAR,GADAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, , HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeysmt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar, The Asstt. Commissioner Of Gurlakatti, Kanakikopa, Naragund, Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Vs. Gadag-582207 Tps, Navanagar, Hudli Pan –Eixpr1582R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

condonation of delay application, the appeal of the assessee was rejected outrightly and the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 15,38,248/- on account of unexplained money under section

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee stands admitted to be adjudicated on issues raised. Page 6 of 17 7. Ground No.2: The Ld.AR at the outset stressed on ground 2 wherein the jurisdiction of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, has been challenged

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation application vide order dated 04/01/2024. 4.2 Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that the surplus of Rs.76,29,084/- was inadvertently claimed as deduction under the amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act instead

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. 6. The assessee is a charitable and educational trust established in the year 1992 by Trust Deed Dt.20.5.1992. The assessee was granted a Registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide orderdt.16.9.1992. The assessee was also granted approval under Section