FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

68. The learned AR submitted that the amount of donation made has already suffered a disallowance under Section 37 of the Act. If a further disallowance is made under Section 80G of the Act, more so in view of such claimed not being prohibited by the said section, it would lead to double disallowance. Therefore the disallowance

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only. 4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and intimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the CPC, sett of the short-term capital loss

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

80G had got omitted. The Assessee received Intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dated June 2, 2018 accepting the Revised Return filed on 29.03.2018. In this Intimation also there is a mention that the due date of filing of the Return by the Assessee is 07/11/2017. 4. On November 7, 2018, the Assessee realised that he had forgotten

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only. 4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and intimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the CPC, sett of the short-term capital loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of Rs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being profit of SEZ units. The total income also comprises

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,259/- consistent with his own finding. 6. The Appellant denies the liability to pay the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. The Grounds of Appeal are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G 33,57,372/- Donation unnamed 60,37,248/- 4,67,50,000/- Fees TOTAL 16,80,24,087/- 4.9 The assessee submitted a detailed reply regarding the errors in classifying the accounts and also explained that these figures were unaudited figure. The Assessing Officer without considering the submission and facts of the assessee and without any evidences

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.

vi) measures for the benefit of armed forces veterans, war widows and their dependents, 9[ Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) veterans, and their dependents including widows]; (vii) training to promote rural sports, nationally recognised sports, paralympic sports and olympic sports ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 14 of 70 (viii) contribution to the prime minister

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.

vi) measures for the benefit of armed forces veterans, war widows and their dependents, 9[ Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) veterans, and their dependents including widows]; (vii) training to promote rural sports, nationally recognised sports, paralympic sports and olympic sports ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 14 of 70 (viii) contribution to the prime minister