MANJUNATH B ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

condone the same, as it is just for one day only. Admittedly, the delay before the CIT(A) is substantial and, therefore, such delay should be justified by the assessee based on cogent reasons. 7.1 Be that as it may be, the assessee admittedly has been non co- operative during the assessment proceedings but the question arises whether

KOUNTHEYA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHIKKAMAGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

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

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

section 41 of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 23rd December 2019 assessing the total income at Rs. 20,67,797/- against returned loss. The assessment order was served on 24th December 2019. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

condone the delay and consider the appeal for adjudication. Page 5 of 20 Valuation of shares 8. The AO during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has received share premium on allotment of shares to the tune of Rs.33,71,77,500 and called for the details of the same. The assessee submitted the break

NANJAPPA SHIVAMURTHY,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 CHIKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

condoned the delay in the interest of justice and fair play in filing the appeal by the assessee. . Page 4 of 7 7.2 On analysing the facts on merit of the case, we note that the revenue has treated entire cash deposits and cash withdrawals as income of the assessee ignoring the fact that cash withdrawal represents the application

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

276/-. Hence, considering the PF and Pension fund,\nthe annual salary of so claimed new employees exceeds the maximum\nlimit of Rs.2.5 lakh. Furthermore, the employer (assessee) is required to\nissue Form-16 in respect of each and every employee considering their\nincome from all sources. But no Form 16 was issued or furnished by the\nassessee.\n\n4.3

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,RAJAJINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,NAGADEVANAHALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

STATE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is sustaining the order of the ITO(TDS) (“AO” in short) passed u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession to its employees for foreign visit u/s 10(5) of the Act for non deduction

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

276/-. Hence, considering the PF and Pension fund, the annual salary of so claimed new employees exceeds the maximum limit of Rs. 2.5 lakh. Furthermore, the employer (assessee) is required to issue Form-16 in respect of each and every employee considering their income from all sources. But no Form 16 was issued or furnished by the assessee

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

276/-. Hence, considering the PF and Pension fund, the annual salary of so claimed new employees exceeds the maximum limit of Rs. 2.5 lakh. Furthermore, the employer (assessee) is required to issue Form-16 in respect of each and every employee considering their income from all sources. But no Form 16 was issued or furnished by the assessee

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIPTUR vs. SRIUDAYARAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.\n6.\nBriefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return\nof income and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee.\nFrom the documents filed, it was noticed that the assessee

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR vs. SRI UDAYRAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. From the documents filed, it was noticed that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal