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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

56,549/- 2017-18 24.09.2019 Rs.23,01,559/- Rs.19,33,025/- Rs.42,34,584/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 24/09/2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 23 7. The ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

56,549/- 2017-18 24.09.2019 Rs.23,01,559/- Rs.19,33,025/- Rs.42,34,584/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 24/09/2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 23 7. The ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, dismissed

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.

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 of Income filed

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

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

2 of 16 b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is right in law to hold the view that the there cannot be a change in the method of valuation despite the fact that Pr. CIT making the observation of shares of assessee company being highly inflated, in the order

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

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

B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1518/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. The Karnataka State Regn and Stamps Department Officials Multi-purpose Co-op Society Ltd., No. 13/A, 8th Main Road, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010 PAN: AAATT1708N APPELLANT Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

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

b) Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2004 order dated 25/04/2006 c) Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax Vs. K.S.P.Shanmugavel Nadar (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras). d) Hon'ble Tribunal in the case

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

b) Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2004 order dated 25/04/2006 c) Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax Vs. K.S.P.Shanmugavel Nadar (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras). d) Hon'ble Tribunal in the case

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the appellant had received large share premium during the concerned year in question. Various notices were issued from time to time and were complied by the appellant. On perusal

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

B of the Act, which requires to be cancelled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs

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

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 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within