SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such

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

68,097/- in Chikmagalur District Page 2 of 8 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issue on 24.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring Nil income. Assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139(1) of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 14,78,835/- u/s 36(1)(va) or 43B of the Act as such addition does not fall under the purview of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. That the learned

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139(1) of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 14,78,835/- u/s 36(1)(va) or 43B of the Act as such addition does not fall under the purview of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. That the learned

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139(1) of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 14,78,835/- u/s 36(1)(va) or 43B of the Act as such addition does not fall under the purview of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. That the learned

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 139(1). Hence, she submitted that the Tribunal overruled the assessee's objections and endorsed the penalties issued by the Assessing Officer. 4.10 Similarly, she submitted that in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Kolkata v. Sushma Devi Agarwal, 16 taxmann.com 68

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

139(1) of the Act and therefore the assessee is not entitled for set off as per section 80 of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that the losses pertain to A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 was not determined since the return for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed belatedly and therefore the assessee

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

139(1) followed by its revised return along with form 10CCB which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowing the above relief. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from department side. Coupled with this, we also wish to reiterate here that sec.80 IA r.w.s. 80 IA (7) expressly provides for the impugned relief. We Page

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

139(1) of the Act, which as per ld. JCIT DR , the assessee failed to do so. Prayers were made by ld. JCIT DR to deny deduction under Section 54 of the Act. At this stage, the judgment and order of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Imports) v. Dilip

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited financial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Pages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax Authorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence and available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited financial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Pages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax Authorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence and available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited financial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Pages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax Authorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence and available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

68,81,516/- Α.Υ. 2010-11 4 Disallowance of Purchases: e) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.45,53,51,501/- being purchases from unregistered dealers under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14,07,03,614/- f) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. 16.1 It is pertinent to deal with the case law relied on by the assessee through the learned

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. 16.1 It is pertinent to deal with the case law relied on by the assessee through the learned

BHAVASAR NAMDEV SIMPI SAMAJ SAHAKAR SANGH LTD,DANDELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

1,68,438/- and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not required to file return of income because of its Page 6 of 8 income below the threshold limit of tax and assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2). We reject this arguments of the ld. AR since the deduction can be claimed