SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 11. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(37) of the Act. Section 10(37) of the Act provides for exemption when there is compulsory acquisition of agricultural land which is located in an urban area. One of the conditions

M/S ESTEEM MALL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3((1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and is in the business of running and maintenance of malls and also deriving rental income out of the units held. It is carrying on the said business under the name and style M/s. Esteem Mall. It is filing its return of income regularly

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

property development and real estate sector. There was a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee's firm on 12.7.2016 to verify the compliance of TDS provisions. The Assessing Officer on verifying the facts and the information and dealt on the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act and found that

M/S SCRIPS N SCROLL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is admitted for hearing and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :- 3.1 The assessee company filed its return

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

condone the delay of 4 days in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “(1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 12 Bangalore passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 2 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. 3. The solitary issue argued is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming denial of exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Doctor by profession. For the assessment year

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

W.S.BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

House Property’. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.53,69,822 in view of the following additions / disallowances to the returned income of Rs.1,16,610 :- i) Income

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the said delay of 329 days in filing the appeal and proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed revised return of income on 21/07/2017 declaring gross total income at Rs. 83,48,789/- and claimed the deduction under Chapter

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Housing Society limited who has been working with the team which oversees the accounts departments and Income tax Proceedings. The appellant filed appeals before Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, against the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. 2. For AY 2018-19 the order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 19. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, we find that in respect of interest income, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its order dated 23.11.2021 in ITA Nos.117 and 118/2015 in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 held

RAKESH JAIN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAX, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

house property there, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient cause in filing the appeal late by 1695 days. Accordingly I hold that the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in not condoning the delay

SHRI. SRINIVASAN SATHIYAMOORTHY ,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

house property and all deduction claims. Similar is the facts in AY 2016-18 also. 4. There is a delay of 36 days in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee explained the delay in his condonation