SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

delay based on the above discussion. Accordingly, the condonation petition filed by the assessee stands allowed. 8. On merits, we have considered the submissions by the Ld. Counsel submitted vide written submission dated 1/08/22, and the records placed before us. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that at stage of hearing, the assessee has not been able to establish

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.53,69,822 in view of the following additions / disallowances to the returned income of Rs.1,16,610 :- i) Income tax penalty Rs.1,47,016 ii) Adhoc disallowance of 25% of sundry creditors Rs.4

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

47,99,510/- by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. of the Act of Rs. 68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.36,03,000/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- 3,38,45,591 5,86,03,541/- 2017-18 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 1,36,81,870/- 91,75,100 2,28,56,970/- 2018-19 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | | 2018-19 | 153C

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act. 2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into Banking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1. 2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

47 pages. M/s. Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company, Shivamogga Page 5 of 9 6. Before us, the ld. A.R. for the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him as there was sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section