LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 144 of IT Act must be therefore struck down as being without jurisdiction. He submitted that therefore, in the present appeals also, this assessment order should be struck down because in the present case also, the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 144 of IT Act are not present. 9. The ld. AR of assessee made detailed arguments

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 144 of IT Act must be therefore struck down as being without jurisdiction. He submitted that therefore, in the present appeals also, this assessment order should be struck down because in the present case also, the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 144 of IT Act are not present. 9. The ld. AR of assessee made detailed arguments

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 144 of IT Act must be therefore struck down as being without jurisdiction. He submitted that therefore, in the present appeals also, this assessment order should be struck down because in the present case also, the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 144 of IT Act are not present. 9. The ld. AR of assessee made detailed arguments

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 144 of IT Act must be therefore struck down as being without jurisdiction. He submitted that therefore, in the present appeals also, this assessment order should be struck down because in the present case also, the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 144 of IT Act are not present. 9. The ld. AR of assessee made detailed arguments

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 2 of 16 3. The brief facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after following

M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.29.12.2008 for Assessment Years 2001-02 and vide order dt.30.12.2008 for Assessment Year 2003-04; making certain additions / disallowances to the returned incomes and also in assessing the income from lease rental receipts as income from house property

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the returned income of the Assessee at Rs. Nil/- is assessed at a loss of Rs. 161,63,03,274/-. The Assessee is aggrieved with that and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos. 261 & 777/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 18 2. In the Assessment Order, there is an issue

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, wherein the Assessing Officer reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” 3 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . and disallowed the standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act on the following grounds:- (i) The assessee

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, wherein the Assessing Officer reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” 3 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . and disallowed the standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act on the following grounds:- (i) The assessee

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, wherein the Assessing Officer reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” 3 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . and disallowed the standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act on the following grounds:- (i) The assessee

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, wherein the Assessing Officer reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” 3 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . and disallowed the standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act on the following grounds:- (i) The assessee

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, wherein the Assessing Officer reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” 3 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . and disallowed the standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act on the following grounds:- (i) The assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. The assessee

PREMA KUMARI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds

PREMA KUMARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds