M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

65,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been completed vide order dated 31.03.2006. During the course of first assessment proceedings, the AO inter-alia disallowed the following amounts: a) Disallowance of financial expenses to the tune of Rs.1,08,89,867/- b) Building maintenance charges

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

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

65,844 as against the Rs.7,33,350 as declared by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. Multi Tek Interior Solutions, Bangalore Page 2 of 8 4. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total

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

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

65 ITR 607 [SC] has held that if a notice has been issued to a person having been of a particular status as described in the notice, the reassessment 11 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. proceedings assessing escaped income of a different status of the assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction. [v]. Reliance is also placed on the following

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

12. Accordingly, the Directors of the Company prepared Revised Return for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Since the Revised Return becomes a delayed Return and it can be accepted, only, by the condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru, the Delay Condonation Application was also prepared. The above documents were submitted before the respective Authorities

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

65 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. However, the Registry has noted the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 30.11.2024 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Page 7 of 14 Siddiq

M/S. L K TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

12. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that the appellant would not stand to benefit by filing the appeal late. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, amend or substitute any of the grounds of appeal raised herein. 14. The grounds of appeal raised herein may be read as without prejudice to each other

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

65,111 and u/s.234B and 234C of the Act. Rs.64,187 TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs.39,79,665 3. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that there was a delay of 2111 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted vide note dated 30/07/2022 as under: “1. In the case of the Appellant, a survey

M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act, after setting off brought forward losses against the profits of eligible unit. 10. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India

MS MEENAKSHI PRE FAB CONCRETE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the Appeal before CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The impugned adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,91,40,333/- made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act is bad in law as it exceeds the limited scope to carry out prima fade adjustments stipulated under section

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 8 (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services