M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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 234D is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 11. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

50,2267- 7 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B even when the Appellant is not liable for the same. 2,02,4157- Total tax effect (see note below) 2. At the outset, it was observed that there was delay in filing the appeal in ITA No.128/Bang/2023 to the extent of 1553 days

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

50,2267- 7 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B even when the Appellant is not liable for the same. 2,02,4157- Total tax effect (see note below) 2. At the outset, it was observed that there was delay in filing the appeal in ITA No.128/Bang/2023 to the extent of 1553 days

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though there was sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant's response to the demand as action against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though there was sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant's response to the demand as action against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income

REBECCA POOJA DSOUZA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

50,473/- under section\n36(1)(va)of the Act on account of delay in remittance of PF & ESI\ncontribution on the facts and circumstances case.\n7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intimation issued by the learned\nAssessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Act is bad in law on the facts\nand circumstances

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.953/B/17 4 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and ought to have adjudicated on the merits of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALAURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

delay of 50 . ITA No.1319 & 1320/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Thus, we proceed to hear the matter on merit. 10. The primary issue before us is whether the ld. PCIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under Section

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

delay of 50 . ITA No.1319 & 1320/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Thus, we proceed to hear the matter on merit. 10. The primary issue before us is whether the ld. PCIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under Section

MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on merits of the matter

M/S CONERGY ENERGY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

50,17,741. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. In view of the international transactions reportedly entered into by the assessee in the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price