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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/-\n| 3,38,45,591\n| 5,86,03,541/-\n| 2017-18\n| 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,36,81,870/-\n| 91,75,100\n| 2,28,56,970/-\n| 2018-19\n| 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

sections": [ "143(2)", "57", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "80P" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay of 282 days in filing the appeal is condonable

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/- | 3,38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

57,950/-\n3,38,45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

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

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

sections": [ "250", "234-A", "234-B", "270A", "143(3)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "56", "263", "234A", "234B", "234C", "57" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

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

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

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

THE TUNGABHADRA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE , DAVANGERE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee\nstands allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay. The Tribunal also decided to remit the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 57