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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

SRI VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Courts have further said that it affects the contention of the revenue the in case of every return where claim made were not accepted by assessing officer for any reason the assess will invite the penalties.” 3. Ground No.1 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is reproduced below: “The AO has erred in adding

SRI. VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Courts have further said that it affects the contention of the revenue the in case of every return where claim made were not accepted by assessing officer for any reason the assess will invite the penalties.” 3. Ground No.1 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is reproduced below: “The AO has erred in adding

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before\nNFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC\nexplaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal\nbefore NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows:\n"5............. .The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before\nNFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC\nexplaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal\nbefore NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows:\n"5............. .The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

SHRI. RAJNISH GOPINATH,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

271 of the Act there is no immunity granted for reasonable cause and the assessee was unable to prove with any formal agreement to act as an agent for shape keeping and he requested that the penalty should be confirmed. 8. Considering the rival submissions and Orders and persuing the entire materials available on records and the orders

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

u/s 10A f the Act 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fats in upholding the AO’s computation of relief under section 10A of the Act at Rs.742,562,786 (as against the amount of Rs.,348,027,117 claimed by the appellant in its return of income). Inter unit set off of losses

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. RASTRIYA COMPUTER SAKSHARATA SAMITHI, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rastriya The Assistant Computer Saksharata Commissioner Of Samithi, Income Tax Pm Iv 1491, (Exemptions), Sheikmale Building, Circle – 1, Vs. Puttur. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaatr9338J Appellant Respondent

section. The appellant did not realize that realize that the aforesaid exemption u/s. 10 123Cliriiid] of the Act, was not applicable, since Be that as it may, there was no tax payable on the income returned by the appellant in the return of income filed for the year under appeal." 7.7 A Remand report on the submissions made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. VENKATESHA EDUCATION, BENGALURU

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

227/-. The Ld.Counsel relied on the copy of the computation of income filed for the assessment year 2013-14 which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. It is submitted that the provision of Rs.3,33,43,438/-, is subsumed in the disallowance by assessee. 5. The primary argument of the Ld.AR is that no income has accrued