DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance made by CPC be deleted and the return computation be accepted. 7. However, the learned CIT(A) examined the facts of the case, the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, and the submissions of the appellant. The Id. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had earned

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowing interest of Rs.4,87,755/- claimed by the Appellant under section 24 of the Act. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Appeal (Rs.) Rs. 4,98,547/- Rs. 84,96,160/- Rs.1,61,266/- Page 3 of 11 ITA No. 849/Bang/2025 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of real

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

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 68 of the Act. 20. That the Authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. 21. That the Authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.49,54,368/- as Unexplained Expenditure