SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 282 days deserves to be condoned and appeal of the Assessee is admitted as it is for sufficient cause. 12. The fact of the case shows that Assessee is a Co-operative society filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 at Rs. Nil/-. This return was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction under chapter

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 4 of the Act, which is not the intention of the legislature. Dismissing this appeal on account of delay, would deprive the justice by not giving the assessee the refund that it deserves and therefore it was pleaded that the Tribunal may take a lenient view and condone the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee

M/S APMG INDIA CERTIFICATIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Apmg India Certifications Private Limited, The Deputy Regus Business Centre, E-1, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Beech, Manyata Income Tax, Vs. Embassy Business Park, Centralized Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Processing Cell-Tds, Bangalore – 560 045. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaica5537D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. [Tax effect of above ground : Rs. 56,200/] 3. In any case and without further prejudice, the levy of fee U/s. 234E of I.T. Act, 1961 in impugned intimation passed U/s. 200A of the LT. Act, is bad in law in as much as section

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P(2)(a) Rs.14,76,803 2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/- Total Rs.28,75,375/- 9. The ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by the assessee

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condonation application for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being a registered Private Limited Company, engaged inthe manufacturing and supply of superior qualityof Aluminium Extrusion and M/s. GTR Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 16 Aluminium Alloy Ingots. The assesseefiled its return of income

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

condonation of delay of 2111 days. The entire premise of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the present appeal as appearing from the following para which forms part of the submission filed by the Ld.AR dated 30/07/2022. “11. However, on account of monetary limits, the Department's appeal stood dismissed vide order dated

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

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following orders of ITAT, Bangalore Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd. V The Dy. Director of Income-tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad - ITA No.82 to 90/Bang/2022 Nagesh Consultants Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS Circle - 2(1.), Bangalore ITA No. 32/Bang/2023 dtd: 07-03-2023 Thomas Abraham

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following orders of ITAT, Bangalore Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd. V The Dy. Director of Income-tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad - ITA No.82 to 90/Bang/2022 Nagesh Consultants Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS Circle - 2(1.), Bangalore ITA No. 32/Bang/2023 dtd: 07-03-2023 Thomas Abraham

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following orders of ITAT, Bangalore Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd. V The Dy. Director of Income-tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad - ITA No.82 to 90/Bang/2022 Nagesh Consultants Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS Circle - 2(1.), Bangalore ITA No. 32/Bang/2023 dtd: 07-03-2023 Thomas Abraham