THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Praxair India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 78 CCH 70 (Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Praxair India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 78 CCH 70 (Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Praxair India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 78 CCH 70 (Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h.) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned and the appeal of the assesses are admitted. 8. The solitary issue in this appeal is that assessee is an individual assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2019 – 20 on 6 February 2020 at a total income of ₹ 24,483,310/– showing income from house property, income from business and income from other

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

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. Yokogawa India Ltd 391 ITR 274 (SC) in the context of section 10A of the Act. Plastiblends India deals with a situation of computation of deduction under Chapter

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 of 19 on 4 June 2025 whereas the order of the learned CIT – A was received on 31st of July 2024. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for both these assessment years and also filing an affidavit showing the clause for delay in filing of the appeal. The affidavit was filed by secretary

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 of 19 on 4 June 2025 whereas the order of the learned CIT – A was received on 31st of July 2024. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for both these assessment years and also filing an affidavit showing the clause for delay in filing of the appeal. The affidavit was filed by secretary

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

vi)in any other case, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said registration is sought,and such trust or institution is registered under section 12AB;] Following clause (b) shall be substituted for the existing clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A by the Finance

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse." A full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

delay in filing the audit report in form 10 CCB, the requirement of filing the audit report being not a mandatory but a directory requirement u/ s 801A(7) of the Act is to be condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest