M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

68,500\nTumkur Grain Merchant co-op\nBank Ltd\n32,72,084\n2,87,500\nBharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd\n9,23,847\n2,15,220\nSubramanyeshwara co-op Bank\nLtd\n2,50,000\nBharat Co-op Bank Ltd\n7,12,500\nGrain Merchant Co-op Bank Ltd\n5,62,500\n1,03,463\nKarnataka State Co-operative Apex

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGLALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

sections": [ "144", "147", "143(3)", "68", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) can be condoned

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed on 28.01 .2016 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

5-1-2018] and the said method of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank case. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. In Para 7.2 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded thus, "7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee reiterated

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

5-1-2018] and the said method of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank case. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. In Para 7.2 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded thus, "7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee reiterated

JNANAVAAHINI SHIKSHANA SAMSTHE MYSORE ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION,WARD, MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Keshav Dubeyjnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Mysuru Near Big Banyan Tree Nh-212, T Narsipura Road, Alnahalli, Mysuru, Vs. Karnataka Pan – Aabtj5183A (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. Additions u/s 68 and invoking Sec 115BBE. 5.1 The learned AO having observed that the trust had cash balance of Rs. 11,09,303/- on 8.11.2016 should have refrained from making additions U/s 68 read with sec 115BBE. 5.2 The appellant having explains the sources of income as out of cash balance on 8.11.2016, the provisions of section

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

68,805 5 2014-2015 3,39,72,356 6 2015-2016 4,03,73,597 Total 15,10,05,646 14.1 She submitted that the assessee company has offered a sum of Rs.2,23,19,384/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 to the extent of Rs.16,12,390/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Bengaluru on 01.09.2022 with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had given reasons

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment