THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

279 Taxman 75\n(SC)/[2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC)[12-01-2021] has also held that Section\n80P being a beneficial provision must be construed with the object of\nfurtheting the co-operative movement generally.\n\n23. In view of the above facts, we find that the issue is squarely covered\nin favor of the Assessee by the above

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

279 ITR 477). 22. The scope of making adjustments under section 143(1), is somewhat similar to the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 (Khatau Junker v Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55, Bom). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under:- “17. In fact, the wording of this provisions itself makes this

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

279 days and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.” 4. The Assessee in support of its claim for condonation of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Managing Director of Assessee organization. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR vehemently opposed the contention raised

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

279 days and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.” 4. The Assessee in support of its claim for condonation of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Managing Director of Assessee organization. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR vehemently opposed the contention raised

C S MANJUNATH,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WAR-1 & TPS, TUMKUR, TUMKUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay of 7 days and\nthe same is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n4. The ld. A.R. submitted that the values mentioned in the\nClause 20(b) of tax audit report [i.e., Details of contributions\nreceived from employees for various funds as referred to in section\n36(1)(va)] is not correct. Instead of mentioning only

W.S.BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

279, 27th Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011. …. Appellant. PAN AAGPW 9544B Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Sandeep, C A Respondent By : Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 28.11.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 6.12.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,BALLUPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,SAKLESHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

SREE VENKATESHWARA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

condonation. 13. Finally, the AR relied on the judgment in COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. FIN. CORPN. LTD., 2012 (279) E.L.T 3 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed an appeal on merits despite delay and emphasized that high- stake matters should not be dismissed solely due to procedural lapses, especially where

THE RON TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OPEARATIVE BANK LIMITED ,GADAG vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee immediately preferred an appeal to the ITAT. However, in this process, a delay of 279 days occurred. 4. Besides, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) also contended that the assessee has a strong case on merits. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed for the condonation

ITHACA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(3)(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

1)(4) Bangalore 560 042 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCI1447B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Ganesh Raj, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Nandini Das, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.6.2023. 2. There is a delay

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

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

SRI. BASAVESHWARA PATTHINA SOUHARDA SHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,KOTHAGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16

279 Koppal Karnataka Karnataka PAN NO : AAJAS7975E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 5.3.2024 having DIN & Order