BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.5.2022 was dismissed without condoning the delay of 208 days. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The orders of the learned CIT(A), NFAC in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity

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

254 the Tribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of the said Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condonation for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-2013, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate development. Assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed by DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore dated 28.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.158,19,10,254/-. 1.4 Order

M/S. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condonation for filing appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-2013, reads as follows:- “1.3 The Appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of real estate development. Assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed by DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore dated 28.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.158,19,10,254/-. 1.4 Order

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 14.06.2022 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 14.06.2022 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income

BALAJI VIVIDODDESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,HOSPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, HOSPET, HOSPET

The appeal is allowed, and the assessee is entitled to the deduction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by The Income Tax Officer Ward– Page 2 of 9 1, Hospet (the learned AO) on December 20, 2019. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal at the outset because it was submitted over four years late and this delay was not considered to be for a ‘sufficient cause’. Therefore

C D O JAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

delay was not condoned by the ld. CIT(E) as more than 2 years have already elapsed since filing of the said petition. We are of the considered opinion that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, possesses wide appellate powers under Section 254

M/S. SHIRLAL MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BETHANGADY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

condonation of delay in filing the return of income by the Pr.CIT, Goa u/s 119[2][b] of the Act will not help the appellant overcome the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

condone Page 2 of 10 the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), ("CIT(A)" for short), is opposed to the applicable laws and facts

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

M/S. PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2020-21

254 days which was not found as because of sufficient reasons and appeal of the assessee was not admitted. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. Page 2 of 7 3. The brief facts show that assessee is a primary co-operative agricultural society, filed its return of income on 30.1.2021 at Rs.Nil. The case

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

condonation petition. Later, the assessee explained the delay before Ld. CIT(A) as follows:- “The assessment order dated 28 02.2014 passed under section 143(3) r w s. 254

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-7, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

254/- to the total income of the assessee on account of determination of ALP. According to the CIT, since the AO passed an Order of Assessment even before an order of reference to the TPO under section 92CA was pending was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore called for an interference under section

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

254/- to the total income of the assessee on account of determination of ALP. According to the CIT, since the AO passed an Order of Assessment even before an order of reference to the TPO under section 92CA was pending was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore called for an interference under section

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore Page 7 of 25 6. The main ground for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the sustaining of addition of Rs.41.35 lakhs as unexplained deposit u/s 68 of the Act. As per Ld. A.R.’s information, it is noticed by the AO that assessee deposited

SRI HALIMPURE SHARANAPPA PREMSAGAR ,BIDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. At the time of hearing, grounds No.2 to 4 were not pressed. 6. The grounds for consideration is with regard to addition of Rs.12,91,700 sustained u/s. 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as against under the provisions of section

SYED WAHID,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 5. The grounds raised reads as follows:- “1. The learned AO erred in adding the entire credit in the bank account amounting to Rs.2,34,00,000/- and the credits are genuine receipts. 2. The AO is not justified in treating agl. Income of Rs.2