ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 7. As far as merits of the appeals are concerned, the factual background of the case needs to be highlighted. The assessee enjoyed the benefit of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act by virtue of an order dated 15.7.2007. The assessee also enjoyed the benefit of recognition u/s. 80G vide order dated

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay in fling the appeals is condoned. 7. As far as merits of the appeals are concerned, the factual background of the case needs to be highlighted. The assessee enjoyed the benefit of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act by virtue of an order dated 15.7.2007. The assessee also enjoyed the benefit of recognition u/s. 80G vide order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

VI Deductions cannot be telescoped or imported in Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act. The words 'derived by an Undertaking' in Section 10-A or 10-B are different from 'derived from' employed in Section 80-HH etc. Therefore, all Profits and Gains of the Undertaking including the incidental income by way of interest on Bank Deposits

SHRI PURUSHOTTAMA NARASIMHA BHARATI SANATANA SABHA,UTTARA KANNADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2024-25

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for the adjudication. 4. Now coming to brief facts of the case is that the assessee trust was granted provisional registration vide no. AALTS5798QE20206 under 02-Sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A dated 27.05.2021 from

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,BELGAUM vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri.Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner Of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajv 0064 F Appellant Respondent : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee By Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue By : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28/01/2021, Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.825/2018. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. In The First Round Of Appeal The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Before This Tribunal Against Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Dated 08/12/2015: 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(E)] Under Section 12A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The I-T Act), To The Extent It Is Not Retrospective In Effect, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Unreasonable & Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Law.

5)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009, registration already held by an assessee shall have automatic renewal unless specifically withdrawn by the CIT and the CIT could not take advantage of mistake committed by the assessee in making an application for renewal of registration when it was not required to do so. The Revenue went in appeal before

BLANK NOISE, C/O SRISHTI INSTITUTE OF ART DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY,,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 12AA and 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') respectively. There is a delay of 12 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

80G] or] under section 263[or under section 272A] [or under section 271] [***] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or an order passed by a [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or a [Principal Director General or] Director General or a [Principal Director or] Director under section 272A; [or]] an order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, 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

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MAKAPUR, LINGASURU TQ AND RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MUDGAL, LINGASURU TQ RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

condoning the short delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 7. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act on 18.1.2018 declaring nil income after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (E), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, this ground in both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George K

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. There were 447 days delays in filing the Cross- objections before this Tribunal. The assessee has not explained the delay in filing this Cross-objections in proper manner and it has not given any reason for such delay. Though, we consider the delay was due to COVID-19 from March

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted