ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2026

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice and the consequential order were bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval for the notice was obtained from an incorrect authority based on the time period.

HASSAN POWER SUPPLY CAMPANY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2181/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a remission or cessation of liability, and the assessee must have derived some benefit from it. In this case, the liabilities were still shown as outstanding in the assessee's books, and there was no evidence of cessation in law or benefit derived by the assessee. Therefore, Section 41(1) could not be invoked.

HONNAPPA MUNIVENKATAREDDY ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2488/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the purchase of the new property and the cost of construction. The Assessing Officer was incorrect in denying the deduction solely based on the illegibility of the purchase deed.

ADITHYA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,KUNDAPURA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , UDUPI

ITA 2269/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal found that for co-operative societies requiring an audit, the due date for filing returns is 31.10.2018. Since the assessee filed its return on 19.09.2018, it was within the prescribed time limit.

MUNIYAPPA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1294/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the 577-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and transition to the faceless regime. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS EMBASSY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED),BENGALURU vs ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2257/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard3 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal verified the facts with the Registry. As the online appeal was adjourned, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the present physical appeal.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BLR, BENGALURU vs DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 2103/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Heard3 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's appeals, as the assessment orders were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court based on a precedent. The revenue had not taken any further proceedings against the High Court's order.

RESHMA KETAN DOSHI,BAGALKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

ITA 1995/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some documents, a comprehensive reconciliation of cash flow was missing. To ensure justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to produce detailed cash records.

SEKAR GOVINDASWAMY,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IE is a mandatory substantive requirement, but its delayed submission is a procedural omission, especially since the form was available before the intimation under section 143(1) was passed. The delay should not deny the benefit, considering the context of the first year of applicability of section 115BAC and the Supreme Court's directions regarding exclusion of time periods due to the pandemic.

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,KODAGU vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU -3, BENGALURU

ITA 1073/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer followed a view supported by the jurisdictional High Court, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263. The PCIT's order was quashed as the Assessing Officer's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

SREE MARUTHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs ITO WARD 7(2)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

ITA 2164/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal referred to its own earlier order and the Supreme Court judgments, holding that co-operative banks are a species of co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

HONNALI URBAN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HONNALI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BANGALORE

ITA 819/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned by the cooperative society on its investments was not erroneous. This was because the AO had followed a view permissible in law, supported by jurisdictional High Court decisions, even if other views were possible.

RAJESH GUJJAR,BAGALKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

ITA 1994/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some documents, a comprehensive reconciliation of cash flow was missing. To ensure justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to produce detailed cash records.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BLR, BENGALURU vs DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 2101/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: Heard3 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's appeals, as the assessment orders were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court based on a precedent. The revenue had not taken any further proceedings against the High Court's order.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BLE, BENGALURU vs DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 2102/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Heard3 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's appeals, as the assessment orders were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court based on a precedent. The revenue had not taken any further proceedings against the High Court's order.

MANDYAM KRISHNAKUMAR SATHYANARAYANA,BENGALURU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1233/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that commission income does not fall under the professions covered by Section 44ADA, hence the AO's action to assess it as income from other sources is upheld. However, regarding the commission income, only net income after expenditure is taxable, and the matter was restored to the AO for verification of expenditure. The gift from the sister was held to be not taxable.

NAFEEJA BI,SHIMOGA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA

ITA 2323/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be plausible and bonafide. The Tribunal condoned the short delay of 46 days in filing the appeal before it. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC.

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.

KANDAVARA ABDUL BASHEER,MANGALURU vs ITO INTL TAX WARD MANGALORE, MANGALURU

ITA 2249/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessee, being a non-resident, faced difficulties in obtaining information and was not adequately questioned on certain grounds. Therefore, a further opportunity was granted.

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.

DEVADAS ANUP,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1933/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit on purchases and making the addition. The Tribunal noted the fixed fee arrangement, the cost-to-cost transfer of goods, and the acceptance of a similar arrangement with another merchandiser in the same year.

PALAPETTY VELAPPAN SHAKTHIDARAN,BANGALORE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), NASHIK

ITA 1939/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal ruled that earning commission income does not qualify for the presumptive taxation scheme under section 44ADA. However, the gift received from the sister was held to be non-taxable. The case concerning commission receipts was remanded to the AO to verify expenditure claims before recomputing the taxable income.

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.