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)

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu leaves

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

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

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu

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

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 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

2) (b) of the Act. On 23.7.2024 this application was rejected as the delay exceeded 6 years. The reason for rejection of the application was revision of return of income where the assessee sought rectification of the mistake in appellate order. Thereafter on 14.11.2024, the assessee engaged another AR, who advised him to file an appeal before the ITAT

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

BANNANJE GRAHAKARA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 21/09/2016 declaring gross total income of Rs.30,08,301/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2), the total income was nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were

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

251 of the Act and remanded back the case to the assessing officer to BasavanneppaGuledakeri Page 2 of 11 verify the facts after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,01,000/- as Unexplained money

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. The Metropolitan Co-Operative Housing Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2)(1), No.21, Grund Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. Vidhana Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaaat 0990 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2023

condone the delay of 48 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Page 2 of 7 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a house building co-operative society. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, assessee filed the return of income declaring Nil income, after claiming deduction amounting

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

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its Return of income for the Asst. year 2022-23 on 26.9.2022 by declaring total income of Rs.35,59,589/- and the tax payable thereon amounting to Rs.11,05,295/- were covered by way of total TDS/TCS amounting to Rs.11,34,672/- and accordingly the assessee claimed refund

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

THE NARAGUND TALUKA PRATHAMIKA SHIKSAK SHIKSAKIYAR CO OP CREDIT S LIMITED ,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

2)(i)(a) of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has made enhancement without issue of mandatory notice u.s 251 of the Act. 9. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. AO and CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in not allowing deduction u.s 57 of the Act; 10. The Assessee reserves the right

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

YELBURGA PROWDA SHALA NOUKARARA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA (N),YELBURGA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

condone the delay. 5. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) issued notice on various dates but it was not received by the assessee and being a Co-operative Society and it is a group of members therefore the case was not represented. He also submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the income of the assessee

M/S. NATURAL REMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.43,12,042 being claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the I.T.Act. 4 M/s.Natural Remedies Private Limited