M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting value under section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting value under section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(3) of the Act. No specific defects have been pointed out in the books, nor has . ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 19 of 46 there been any finding of inflation of expenses, suppression of sales, or violation of section 40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

3) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to invoke provisions of\nSection 12AB(4) of the Act that empower the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner to cancel registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

145).\nIt is not the case of Revenue also, the ld. counsel for the\nassessee argued, that the survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act\nin the case of the assessee was subsequently converted into a\nsearch u/s.132 of the Act. He argued that issue of warrant of\nauthorization by the competent authority is a necessary\nprecondition for initiation of search

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. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

3) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to invoke provisions of\nSection 12AB(4) of the Act that empower the Principal Commissioner or\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 35 of 81\nCommissioner to cancel registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

3) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to invoke provisions of\nSection 12AB(4) of the Act that empower the Principal Commissioner or\nPage 35 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nCommissioner to cancel registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

145(3) of the\nAct. No specific defects have been pointed out in the books, nor has\nthere been any finding of inflation of expenses, suppression of sales, or\nviolation of section 40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

145(3) of the\nAct. No specific defects have been pointed out in the books, nor has\nthere been any finding of inflation of expenses, suppression of sales, or\nviolation of section 40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

145(3) of the\nAct. No specific defects have been pointed out in the books, nor has\n\nthere been any finding of inflation of expenses, suppression of sales, or\nviolation of section 40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

145(3) of the\nAct. No specific defects have been pointed out in the books, nor has\n\nthere been any finding of inflation of expenses, suppression of sales, or\nviolation of section 40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section