TIRUPATHI ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

house property only. Therefore there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. Page 5 of 6 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We find that the learned CIT–A has issued first notice in 2022. The second notice was issued on 2 May 2024 where the assessee

NEETA CHAUDHARY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

property is from unexplained sources and passed an assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,436,423/–. 8. The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A stating that she is a female homemaker not having any business or profession

GAURAV RAJAN GHOOTA,G-4, SAI KUTEER APARTMENTS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(2), HMT BUILDING BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making a best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire Page 2 of 4 gross salary and interest income and disallowed deductions and exemptions claimed in Form 16 on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished during assessment proceedings. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

SRI. SANDEEP NARAYAN GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

144B without allowing the appellant to file the details on 24.3.2022 by disabling or locking the submit response option in the efiling portal. 5. The NFAC erred in not appreciating that the appellant had filed an adjournment request for filing the details on or before 24.3.2022 for medical reasons of the authorised representative. 6. On facts and circumstances

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

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

144B of the Act dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department was dismissed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee because during the appellate proceedings the Assessee was given sufficient opportunities and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the Assessee is not effectively pursuing the Appeal and therefore he does

SYEDA BIBI SADIQA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

Section 54 as determined by the learned CIT Appeal needs to be corrected as under: The total sale proceeds of the apartments is 3,86,00,000 less: Cost of the new asset being 19,53,60,000. The deduction is restricted to the Sale Proceeds i.e 3,86,00,000. 3. The Learned CIT (A) had a misplaced idea

UPAMA ROY,KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-5(3) (4), KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –

house property. 3. Subsequently, information was received regarding the assessee's involvement in trading, specifically the sale and purchase of bitcoins, with capital gains not disclosed in the income tax return. It was determined that, for the relevant assessment year, the assessee transacted in bitcoins amounting to ₹18,50,795 yet failed to declare the corresponding capital gains. 4. Consequently

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

properties. Apart from building house for the Government, the assessee also purchases land from private parties and construct building for private parties. Thus, the surplus earned by the assessee is liable to be taxed during the year.\n\n5.2 The assessee is not doing any activity that can be treated as charitable in nature and therefore, it is held that

SRI. KRISHNAPPA VINODKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

144B of the Act dated 25/03/2022 by the A.O. which is bad in law and void-ab-initio in as much as, the said assessment u/s.147 Page 2 of 7 of the Act, has been made after the substitution of section 147 of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021 and consequently, the impugned order passed under

SUNIL SHIGLI,PRESENTLY IN UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

144B of the Page 2 of 6 Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the Assessment Unit [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and in appeal before us. 3. The facts show that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 20.7.2022 declaring total income of Rs.15,05,250. This return was selected

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6) The claim of deduction is duly examined and found that the same is as per provisions of the Act. 7) The case of the assessee falls in the category of providing credit facilities

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

144B of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that any regulation fees paid to the municipal authority for compounding of offence are in the nature of a penalty. The AO further held that the assessee is trying to make a distinction between those offences which can be compounded and those which cannot be and calls

SUVILAS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

Properties Pvt. Ltd., No. 100 (Old No. 52) The Principal Donnabas Tower, Commissioner of Railway Parallel Road, Income Tax, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru – 560 020. PAN: AAQCS8781D APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Prasanna N Urala, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN

SHRI. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

Property Construction (P.)\nLtd. vs. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bombay) [08-09-2025]\nhas held that [ AY 2017-18]\n“9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the A.Y. 2017-18 fell\nfor completion on 31st March 2021. As the expiry date fell during the time period of\n20th March

M/S. ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

property it was given. The ld. AO rejected the details furnished by the assessee holding that why such transaction has not been done through RTGS/NEFT and in absence of further details, the above sum was also added under the provisions of section 69A of the Act. 7. Assessment order was passed on 19.4.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

property it was given. The ld. AO rejected the details furnished by the assessee holding that why such transaction has not been done through RTGS/NEFT and in absence of further details, the above sum was also added under the provisions of section 69A of the Act. 7. Assessment order was passed on 19.4.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B