AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

4 of 9 11. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 143(1)(a)(i) to (vi) provides for the following adjustments to be made while processing the return electronically:- “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act, amounting to Rs.15,00,698/-, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that assessee has not filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, ADARAKATTI,LAKSHMESHWAR TALUK GADAG DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 139(1)/139(4) or u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The AO added

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NANJUNDIAH, BANGALORE

In the result we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

disallowed but for a sum of Rs.10,54,169/-. 04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Argument of the assessee before the CIT (A) was that even though the amount of Rs.10,01,000/- was deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme, beyond the due date of filing the return, still the claim was allowable u/s.54F

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

4) and under Section 131 when the same\nwere retracted in entirety by the Appellant by filing\nthe original return under Section 139(1) dated\n31.12.2020 without giving effect to the aforesaid\nstatements and by filing letters dated 06.01.2021\n(the copy of same was also filed before Learned\nAd.CIT) and dated 12.07.2021 particularly when the\noriginally returned income

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

139(9).\n11. 4. The Learned AO erred in making various\nadditions on the basis of the revised return filed on\n09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide\nAppellant's letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice\nunder Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021.\n11. 5. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in\nselectively using the revised return

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\n\nThus, the facts

SRI GOPAL BYRE GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 139(4) of the Act. 3.6 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below, in disallowing

KALIA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,BELHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

139(4) and much after the due date mentioned in the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer treated the same as invalid and proceeded to complete the assessment in terms of section 144 of the IT Act after hearing the representative of the appellant and verifying the books of account and other details called for by the Department. While

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

4) of the Act. The AO also referred to section 54F of the Act and finally he noted that as per submissions dated 10.10.2019, construction of the house was started in April, 2019 after the date of filing of return of income (10.-07.2018) under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not purchased or constructed

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

4 of the Revenue is also dismissed. 19. The ground No 5 of the Revenue deals with the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the in respect of CSR donations. In the assessment order, the deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act to the extent of Rs. 70,63,75,000/- was disallowed for the reason that

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of Rs.19,39,60,866/- was based solely on third party information, which was not subjected to any further scrutiny. Thus, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee stating: "Thus, the entire disallowance in this case is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, which have not been independently subjected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

4,67,690 should be deleted. 14.2. In support of the same, the assessee furnished copies of MS certificates for admission as additional evidence. It also enclosed a letter from Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to substantiate its claim that revenue from Infosys has been taken into account (by M/s. Ample Technologies) for determination of its total income. The assessee referred