M/S. THE RAJAJI NAGAR HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

251/- only. 3. The return was processed by the CPC vide intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 12th February 2019. In the intimation order, the CPC in pursuance to the provision of section 80AC(ii) of the Act disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the assessee

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 4 of the Act, which is not the intention of the legislature. Dismissing this appeal on account of delay, would deprive the justice by not giving the assessee the refund that it deserves and therefore it was pleaded that the Tribunal may take a lenient view and condone the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

251/- (including Rs. 52,10,92,957/- on ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 19 of 34 account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian Tax Authorities) in respect of income on which the deduction under section 10AA of the Act has been claimed. 11.1 The AO disallowed the foreign tax credit related to incomes

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18

1. That the order of the learned lower authorities in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have exercised the powers amended in provisions of section 251 of the Act and remanded back

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

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

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

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind