HINDUSTAN MARBLE & GRANITE ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyhindustan Marble & Granite Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Regd. Office: No.5, Lalbagh- Cr Building, Queens Rod Hosur Road, Wilson Garden Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560027 Pan – Aaafh8437Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

condoning the delay, ignoring the facts of the case and Affidavit furnished by the Appellant wherein the reason for the delay was explained. 2 Hindustan Marble & Granite 3. The learned CITA has failed to appreciate the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal which was purely due to improper serving of the penalty order in as much

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

273,723,474 as against Rs 325,419,721 for the transactions with the USA AE. The Assessee withdrew the grounds pertaining to the TP adjustment to the extent of the USA portion and the balance TP adjustment of Rs 174,764,504 pertaining to non-USA portion was on appeal before the CIT(A). ITA Nos.1555 & 1556/Bang/2017 Page

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

273,723,474 as against Rs 325,419,721 for the transactions with the USA AE. The Assessee withdrew the grounds pertaining to the TP adjustment to the extent of the USA portion and the balance TP adjustment of Rs 174,764,504 pertaining to non-USA portion was on appeal before the CIT(A). ITA Nos.1555 & 1556/Bang/2017 Page

MUSTAFA KHALEEL,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

273 Square Feet. The assessee has received compensation of Rs.45,87,402/- on 07-10-2017. 2.2 The assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19 relevant to the financial year 2017-18 filed the return of income vide acknowledgement No.948864870280718 on 28-07-2018, wherein, he offered capital gain for taxation for acquisition amount received after claiming the acquisition cost

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are\nallowed

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Itc Employees Housing Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2)(4), #252, 1St Floor 4Th Cross, Bengaluru. Banaswadi Main Road, Subbarayanapalya, Bengaluru – 560 033. Pan : Aaaa 0532 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .01.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 273 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

HIRA FOUNDATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2014-15

section 11(2) of the Act for application in future. However, the assessee did not furnish Form No.10, the statutory form prescribed for reporting about accumulation of income. This form is required to be furnished for claiming the above said deduction. Hence, in the absence of Form No.10, the claim of accumulation of Rs.75 lakhs was rejected while processing

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

273/- and Capital expenditure of Rs.2,10,07,527/-coming to a total of Rs 5,11,30,800/- is eligible for deduction from Gross Income. Thus from its Gross Income of Rs. 5,71,54,412/- this Rs 5,11,30,800/- had to be deducted to arrive at the Surplus as per Sec 11 (1)(a). Assessee pleads