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

148A of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 07/04/2022. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of Income however during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a computation of income declaring income from house property of Rs.59,535/- and interest from

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

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

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

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

148A (d) requiring the assessee to show cause why notice under section 148 should not be issued. 4. Assessee furnished reply on 23/3/2023 wherein it was stated that Assessee has purchased a flat, source of which has come from her husband who was working with NTPC and his son who is also working. 5. The learned assessing officer passed

SHILPA NARA,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and income from other sources. A search under section 132 of the Act was carried out as on 12th 3. March 2020 in connection with M/s Sree Raghavendra Enterprise group including the residential premises of the assessee in the impugned search. 4. In consequence to the search, the proceeding under section 153A of the Act was initiated

SHILPA NARA,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and income from other sources. A search under section 132 of the Act was carried out as on 12th 3. March 2020 in connection with M/s Sree Raghavendra Enterprise group including the residential premises of the assessee in the impugned search. 4. In consequence to the search, the proceeding under section 153A of the Act was initiated

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

section 148 and 148A of the Act and consequently, the impugned order passed without a statutory provision in the statute on the date of passing the assessment order is a nullity. 3. Without prejudice to the above. the order of re- assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially. the mandatory requirements

SMT. REKHA GANESH,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), DAVANGERE

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

property' and\n'other source'. She is also a partner in the firms namely M/s S.S. Trading\nCompany and M/s Lakshmi Flour Mills. As such, search u/s 132 of the\nAct was conducted in the case of Nirav Modi Group/Firestar Group/ M/s\nFirestar Diamond International Pvt Ltd. dated 14/01/2017. In connection\nwith the impugned search, a survey proceeding under section

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

REBECCA MORRIS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

148A r.w.s. 149(1)(b) of the Act was issued and a show cause notice was also issued on 18.3.2023, however assessee did not submit any response. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.3.2023. The AO also issued show cause notice for making the assessment

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