NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

148A(d)of the Act along with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act were served to the assessee. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 11/01/2024. From the return of income filed by the assessee, it was seen by the AO that the assessee had claimed cost of acquisition

E ASHWATH NARAYAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain. Based on the above information the AO noted that there is an E. Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2015-16 & accordingly issued show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 23/03/2022 by directing to submit the response with supporting documents on or before

DANDU JOJAPPA FRANCIS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains at Rs. 2,83,61,200/- apart from the other additions. Admittedly, the income estimated by the AO is more than Rs. 50 Lakhs and the notice was also issued after the period of 3 years and therefore the assessing officer has to obtain the prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. The section

PAKARAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SRINIVASGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain. Accordingly, the AO formed reason to believe for escapement of income and issued notice under section148 of the Act issued as on 29th June 2021. Page 4 of 10 7.1 As the provision of section 148 of the Act was amended by the Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. from 1st April 2021, laying down certain procedure to be followed

BALUSA VENKATA MURALIKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFCIER, INTL TAXN, WARD1(2), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

148A(d) of the Act on 31.3.2022 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the assessee filed his return of income on 10.2.2023 and declared a total income of Rs.1,71,990/-. The ld. AO sought for the details about the sale consideration received by him and proposed to levy long term capital gain

SHAMANNA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

gains, as the appellant had sold an agriculture land bearing no. Sy. No. 63/4, situated at Samanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore is not liable for tax since the parcels of agricultural land sold do not fall under the category of "Capital Asset" as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and it is outside

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 148A of the Act are bad in law. C. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO COMPUTATION OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS

REHANA PARVEEN,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains / losses. However, the assessee could not Page 3 of 5 furnish any evidence in support of its cost of improvements claimed. Therefore, the same was added as income and the total income was assessed at Rs.48,09,590/-. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal beforethe CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

148A (d) of the act was passed on 19/4/2022 and accordingly notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 19/4/2022. Assessee failed to respond. Further ld AO issued notice under section 142 (1) through the ITBA portal on various dates but same was not responded to. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer proceeded to pass a draft assessment order

KEMPAIAH NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. NA, NA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains and brought the same to tax. The AO had not accepted the rate adopted by the assessee at Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. for determining the cost of acquisition. The AO considered the fact that the said agricultural lands were converted into non-agricultural lands for residential purposes and therefore not accepted the rate at Rs. 50/- per sq.ft

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section (3) of rule 46A of Income tax rules” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife and not filed her return of income. Based on the information through the INSIGHT PORTAL, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, seeking the details about the financial transactions undertaken by her. Before that

MRS. JEANETTE DSOUZA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. VINOD DSOUZA),MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

capital gain and further denied the indexation benefit under section 55 (2) (ac) though the property was acquired in 1994 and held for over 22 years. 3. The briefly stated the fact shows that late Sri Vinod D'Souza was a resident individual who acquired an immovable property in the year 1994 and sold the same as per registered sale

KANIGERE RAMEGOWDA NINGARAJU,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, HASSAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16

capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the PCIT relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 95 taxmann.com 366 and CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115, and set aside

SMT. NILESHWAR JAYANTHI PRABHU L/R OF LATE SRI. NILESHWAR DAMODAR PRABHU,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) thereby confirmed the order of the AO which was made in the name of the deceased assessee. The assessee challenged the said order before this Tribunal and also raised an additional ground which goes into the root of the matter. In the additional ground, the assessee claimed that the assessment order made on the deceased

ESSAE SUHAGRAJA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 147 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) on 3 ITA Nos.590 to 592/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 19 March 2023 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 69,843,018/– against the return filed by the assessee on 30 September 2018 at Rs. Nil, was dismissed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ESSAE SUHAGRAJA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 147 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) on 3 ITA Nos.590 to 592/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 19 March 2023 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 69,843,018/– against the return filed by the assessee on 30 September 2018 at Rs. Nil, was dismissed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ESSAE SUHAGRAJA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 147 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) on 3 ITA Nos.590 to 592/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 19 March 2023 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 69,843,018/– against the return filed by the assessee on 30 September 2018 at Rs. Nil, was dismissed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ARCHANA RAVI KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result stay petition becomes infructuous and hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeysa No.142/Bang/2025 & Assessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain of ₹ 7,320,000 was assessed in the hands of the assessee. Against this the assessee has preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who disposed of the appeal of the assessee on the basis of the statement of facts and grounds of appeal for the reason that assessee did not respond to the notices issued