SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

section as a whole and accordingly the said insertion of first proviso to s. 12A(2) of the Act w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2014 should be read as retrospective in operation w.e.f. the date when the condition of eligibility for exemption under ss. 11 85 12 as mentioned in s. 12A provided for registration under s. 12AA ae a pre-condition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6 of 73 9. For the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 the first common ground in these appeals which require adjudication is with regard to framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. In Appeals No.1215 to ITA No.1217/Bang/2019 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16, the assessee challenges only the addition made

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

6) G. Parkar Medical Foundation Vs. Dy. Ld. CIT [2014] 34 ITR (Trib) 286 (Pune) held that: As per the provisions of section 12AA(3) the Commissioner can cancel the registration granted earlier if he /she was satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects

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

11 shall inter-alia file its return of income within the due dates. Further it is specifically mentioned that the amendment will take effect from 01/04/2018 and will accordingly apply from assessment Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore Page 19 of 25 year 2018-19 and subsequent years. Hence the Bench is of the view that on the application of general

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

6) or sub-section (7), where under- reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall