BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

SECTION 253(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 270 days in filing the appeal, in the interests of justice and equity. BANGALORE DATE: Hakin And ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT KING & PARTRIDGE

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to admit the appeal of the Appellant on the grounds that delay in filing of the appeal

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

delay in filing of Form 67 before the jurisdictional PCIT. If the condonation is granted the assessee may again apply for rectification before the jurisdictional AO. 9. Aggrieved by the order of ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Ludhiana the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 59 pages containing therein written

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

48,271 towards the objectives of the trust holding that the Appellant has delayed in furnishing the Form-106 and further the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding the denial of the Appellant's claim towards the accumulation

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.O. and admit the C.O. for adjudication. 7.0 The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C.O. are taken up together for disposal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative contended

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

48,71,340 (computation as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act) instead of Rs.108,32,16,980 (as per return of income). In ground 2, the assessee challenges the above action of the A.O. We are of the view that in the final assessment order, the A.O. can only include those figures, which are subject matter of dispute

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

48,120/-. 2. The Appellant's case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue for 08 selection is to verify "Cash deposit" Notice was issued to Appellant under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the wrong email id of the Appellant and subsequently, the AO passed an ex- parte order under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the proceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

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

48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 The Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are identical and the same may be considered. The Ld.DR strongly opposed the condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee, however could not controvert the circumstances that led to the delay as mentioned in the affidavit. We have perused the submissions

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

48,247/- as against the returned income of Rs.73,590/- for the assessment year 2017-18, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Grounds on disallowance of deduction u/s 8oP(2)(a)(i), Rs.30,74,662/-: a. The authorities below are not justified in disallowing the deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i) having admitted that

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 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

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

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 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

M/S. SARVADEIVATHA EDUCATION TRUST(REGD),KODAGU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD, MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

48,02,410/-. (ii) The Assessee was registered U/s 12AA dt. 06.08.2020 and is registered u/s 12AB in Form 10AC dated 30.11.2022 (From AY 2022-23 to 2026-27). (iii) Assessee filed its Return of Income on 06.11.2022 (Due date: 07.11.2022) & Form 10B on 05.11.2022 (Due date: 07.10.2022) for A.Y. 2022-23. There is a delay of 29 days

PALO ALTO NETWORKS (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2022-23

condonation of delay in filing appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated March 16, 2023 ('the Intimation'), despite the fact that the Appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for non- filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MAKAPUR, LINGASURU TQ AND RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI,

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

48 years Principal Trustee of Shri Sadguru Nirupadeshwara Nitya ``Dasoha Charitable Trust, Ankalimath situated at Ankalimath Post, Makapura, Lingasugar, Tq Raichur District, Karnataka-584125 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath follows: " The Deponent is Principal trustee of Shri. Sadguru Nirupacleshwara Nitva Dasoha Charitable Trust which is Registered and Resident in India engaged in Writable activities

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MUDGAL, LINGASURU TQ RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

48 years Principal Trustee of Shri Sadguru Nirupadeshwara Nitya ``Dasoha Charitable Trust, Ankalimath situated at Ankalimath Post, Makapura, Lingasugar, Tq Raichur District, Karnataka-584125 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath follows: " The Deponent is Principal trustee of Shri. Sadguru Nirupacleshwara Nitva Dasoha Charitable Trust which is Registered and Resident in India engaged in Writable activities

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeals before us and consider the appeal for adjudication. 8. Though the assessee has raised grounds both on legal issue and merits, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the merits of the case wherein it is contended that the AO has conducted proper enquiry before concluding