THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

2. The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no “sufficient cause” for filing appeal belatedly before him. As per the order of NFAC, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.6.2019 served on the assessee on the same

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

2. The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no “sufficient cause” for filing appeal belatedly before him. As per the order of NFAC, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.6.2019 served on the assessee on the same

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2 of 18\nExpenditure of the appellant Society for the financial year 2011-12 and\nhence there was no justification to invoke the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Income Tax Act 1961.\n4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower authorities\nought to have appreciated that the Appellant was a 12AA registered

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

2 of 23\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment years\n2013

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

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

section 80P(2)(d) of the Ach\nAdditional Ground\n8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that the learned lower authorities ought to have\nheld that the interest of Rs.1,00,80,256/- from investment made in Sri Guru Raghavendra\nSahakara Bank cannot be said to be accrued and therefore, cannot be treated as income.\nEach of the above grounds

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

2 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

256 (Bangalore\nTribunal). The learned DR also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court\nin the case of PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 (Order dated\n11.07.2022) to contend if there is delay in filing the audit report, only the\nadministrative PCCIT or the CBDT has got the power to condone the delay

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall

MANOJ KUMAR EKAMBARAM ARCOT,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 75,27,810/- as against the returned income of Rs.3,13,444/- for the impugned assessment year 2015-16 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Facts apropos are that the assessee a salaried individual had filed his return of income for the assessment year : 2009-10 declaring an income of Rs.2,98,718/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had sold a property bearing plot no.506, situated at Hosur Sarjapur

M/S ESTEEM MALL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3((1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

2 of 6 filed within the period of limitation. Due to oversight and inadvertence of the AR, the delay of 150 days has occurred. Placing reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Mst. Katiji and Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ANTARIKSH SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

delay in filing the appeal is condoned as the same has occurred due to reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of internet services and infrastructure management services. During the relevant previous year, the assessee issued 19500 shares and received share premium of Rs. 6,98,05,000 from Manipal Education & Medical

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

256 ITR 1) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with the assessment of DDT liability like

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

256 ITR 1) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with the assessment of DDT liability like