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

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

57,473/- was denied by the AO for Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 30.09.2016 was revised by the CIT(A) under section 263 of the Act by an Page 3 of 9 order dated 26.11.2019. Pursuant to the said order under section 263 of the Act, an Order of Assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s

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 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 2 IT(IT)A Nos.1715 & 1716/Bang/2019 Smt.Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy. 3. Common grounds are raised in both the appeals, except variance in figures. Hence, I reproduce the grounds raised in IT(IT)A No.1715/Bang/2019 for assessment year2012-2013:- “(1) The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 2 IT(IT)A Nos.1715 & 1716/Bang/2019 Smt.Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy. 3. Common grounds are raised in both the appeals, except variance in figures. Hence, I reproduce the grounds raised in IT(IT)A No.1715/Bang/2019 for assessment year2012-2013:- “(1) The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

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

57 (Kar). iii) CIT Vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 309 (Madras) iv) L. SOhanraj Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 120 to 135 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 (Kar) 22. Wherefore, the above mentioned Appellant humbly pray before your Honour to kindly take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 461 days in filing

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 200A of the Act for computation of the fee. In support of the above contentions, the learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.). 4.2.2 On the issue of condonation of delay in filing the 2 appeals before

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 200A of the Act for computation of the fee. In support of the above contentions, the learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.). 4.2.2 On the issue of condonation of delay in filing the 2 appeals before

THE CAUVERY POWER SCHEME CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED SHIVANASAMUDRAM (BLUF) ,SHIVANASAMUDRAM(BLUF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kptcl & Escoms Employees Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Shivanasamudram (Bluf), Mandya. Malavalli Tq. Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Aalat 1943 P Erstwhile M/S. The Cauvery Power Scheme Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Shivanasamudram (Bluf) Malavalli Tq, Mandya Dist, Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Aaatt 2440 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. At the outset, I notice that Addl/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before Page 2 of 5 him. Copy of the condonation application

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. 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