PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file a return of income within 5 days from date of issue of notice. Due to the paucity of time allowed in notice under section

M/S. MOLECULAR CONNECTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE - 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 111A of the Act is applicable only for equity oriented mutual funds. Therefore, this claim of assessee was disallowed

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoi.T.A No.922/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Ltd, No.32, 3Rd Floor, D. Devraj Urs Road, Race Course Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Respondent Pan : Aaajk0471H Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. Dhivahar, Jcit Heard On : 05.04.2016 Pronounced On : 2904.2016 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowances. However, no at- tempt is made here to annul the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act though such an action is called for in the appellate proceedings since the additions/disallowances made by the AO are deleted. The remand report called for from the AO has not been received despite several reminders. The findings in this order are based

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO.OP.APEX BANK LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoi.T.A No.922/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Ltd, No.32, 3Rd Floor, D. Devraj Urs Road, Race Course Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Respondent Pan : Aaajk0471H Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. Dhivahar, Jcit Heard On : 05.04.2016 Pronounced On : 2904.2016 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowances. However, no at- tempt is made here to annul the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act though such an action is called for in the appellate proceedings since the additions/disallowances made by the AO are deleted. The remand report called for from the AO has not been received despite several reminders. The findings in this order are based

M/S NEOBYTES SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

111A of the Act at Rs. 42,17,773. Page 2 of 6 3. The appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,36,48,153 under section 10A of the Act. In support of the claim under section 10A of the Act, the assessee had also produced Form 56F duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. 4. The learned

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

disallowance of 1/5th of preconstruction period interest was confirmed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "23", "24", "111A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "234B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MS. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

disallowance since\nthe main issue has been remitted back to the file of ld. AO to\nconsider the books of accounts of the assessee. This ground is also\nshould go back to the ld. AO if there is no transaction with the said\ncontractors as narrated in the assessment order in AY 2013-14 &\n2015-16 and no addition could

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

Section 263 was held invalid. Held in the following cases. i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.)(Trib.) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in arriving