ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SYNOVA INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD, BANGALORE

The appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed in

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

condonation of delay as per para-9 & 10 of the affidavit, as reproduced below; “9. In this regard, your cross objector wishes to submit that the Finance Act 2012, has amended provisions of sec.92C of the Act, by inserting sub-sections 2A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE vs. M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

condone the delay and admit the cross- objections for adjudication. 15. However, we shall deal with the very maintainability of the present cross-objections. From the grounds of cross objections, it is clear that the assessee-company assailed the order of the CIT(A) for not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on the merits as well as on the validity

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA MAILANAYAKANAHALLI,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

2A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The return of income so filed by the assessee was processed electronically by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The CPC by an intimation dated 25.06.2019, disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

delay in e-verifying the return due to the technical glitches has also been condoned by the CPC & therefore return filed on 07/07/2021 is a valid return. Section 144 of the Act concededly deals with the situation where inter alia, the assessee fails to file a return or fails to comply with all the terms of the notice issued under

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FMC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

2A) was inserted by Finance Act, 2012. This new section mandates that if the arithmetical mean price falls beyond +/- 5% from the price charged in the international transactions, then the assessee does not have any option referred to in Section 92C(2) of the Act. Thus, as per the above amendment, it is clear that the +/- 5% variation is only

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

condoned in filing these appeals and the appeals are deemed to be filed in time for further adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (AO) has passed the orders u/s 200A(1) the Act levying late fee towards the delay in filing the TDS returns

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2A) of section 142 or fails to comply with the terms of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. 23. As noted above, the record shows that the respondent/assessee's return was in place. The respondent/assessee had taken the plea that the earlier return should be treated as a return in response to notice under section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2A) of section 142 or fails to comply with the terms of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. 23. As noted above, the record shows that the respondent/assessee's return was in place. The respondent/assessee had taken the plea that the earlier return should be treated as a return in response to notice under section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2A) of section 142 or fails to comply with the terms of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. 23. As noted above, the record shows that the respondent/assessee's return was in place. The respondent/assessee had taken the plea that the earlier return should be treated as a return in response to notice under section

JOHN D SILVA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

2A) or fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act for the year under appeal is totally absent and consequently deserves to be cancelled. 2B. The order u/s. 144 of the Act are bad in law and void- ab-initio as there is no satisfaction reached and recorded by the learned

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

2A) (Ann. B Pages 30-42) without assuming valid jurisdiction over the Appellant by issue of the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time, are bad in law, vitiated, null & void ab initio and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside in its entirety. 17.4 In support of its contention. the Appellant relies upon

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

2A) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof; within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order of the Assessing Officer (in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel

MULBERRY TEXTLIES LLP,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

condone the delay for filing the appeal of the assessee belatedly. M/s. Mulberry Textiles LLP, Bangalore Page 2 of 19 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2020 declaring a total income of Rs.3,75,710/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.11.2021, wherein the exemption

MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

2A Report and GSTR-2B reports are third party\nevidence and the same can be verified with the GST Department.\nThe AO, however, concluded the Scrutiny assessment by making\naddition of income of Rs.49,32,553/- by disallowing the claim of the\nexcess purchases of following suppliers:-\nDetails of Disallowance as per Order (Based on the difference b/w books & GSTR2A/2B

RAJARATHNAM'S JEWELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

2A) directing the assessee to appear on 22.07.2013. Ultimately no special audit was directed to be carried out. 15. The assessee thus contended before the AO that the agreements of 1998 and 1999 by which the Gold of the partners and relatives was deposited with the firm was a business practice of the assessee and was known to the Department