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

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on merits of the matter

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

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

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

3) read with 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

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

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

3 of the Memorandum of Association, the object of the society are-(a) to further the noble cause of secular education and intellectual development of the general public without distinction as to caste, creed or religion. (b) to run primary, secondary and other schools, colleges and training institutions for the benefit of the public in general. (c) to maintain reading

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

MRS.SUMAN C SANU ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143

MR.UMESH SHET ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143

MR.K MOHAN SHET ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. As far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, the factual details are that all the three Assessee’s are individuals. They filed their returns of income for AY 1985-86 on or before the due date and their returns were accepted u/s.143

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee was in real estate business apart from pawn broking for the year under appeal. The assessee was originally assessed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 with certain additions. Aggrieved by such additions, the assessee filed appeal before