NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

148A(d) of the Act dt: 10/04/2024 is barred by limitation and consequently the entire proceedings is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act dt: 10/04/2024 is barred by limitation and the reassessment

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the Asst. year 2015-16 on 19/04/2022, however concluded the reassessment proceedings on 17/12/2024 by adding alleged escaped income of Rs.10,12,160/- only. On going through the Annexure to the SCN issued u/s 148A

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section vide 148A of the Act has been passed in such case DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-25/1064704419(1) dated 07/05/2024 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess

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

148A(d) and issued notice under section 148 only on 28.07.2022. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal (supra), held that after adjusting statutory exclusions and the fourth proviso to section 149, only a limited “surviving period” remained for issuance of notice under section

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

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act. In the present case the AO should have passed a speaking Order U/s 148A

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

reassessment notices are deemed to be  show cause notices under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act in accordance

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not\nexpressly bar the application of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and\nAmendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of Taxation and Other\nLaws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to\nthe entire Income-Tax Act, including Sections

TAKRAR RANGANATHA RAO NAGASHRE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassess and therefore this non-application of mind is fatal to the entire proceedings, thereby rendering them bad at in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that Assessing Officer having failed to issue mandatory notice under section 148A

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

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

148A(d) and issue of notice under section 148 is also submitted. 11. Thus, the ld SR DR says and submits that approval obtained by the ld AO u/s 151 of the act from the PR CIT for both the years is a valid approval despite three years period passed from the end of the assessment year

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

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

148A(d) and issue of notice under section 148 is also submitted. 11. Thus, the ld SR DR says and submits that approval obtained by the ld AO u/s 151 of the act from the PR CIT for both the years is a valid approval despite three years period passed from the end of the assessment year

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is correct and the period of 6 years will apply in this case because escapement of income is more

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is correct and the period of 6 years will apply in this case because escapement of income is more

STAR CERAMICS ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings-initiated under Section 148, and completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, without appreciating that the proceedings were initiated based on vague, borrowed, and unverified information, and without independent application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer. IV The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A

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

reassessment was not granted by the appropriate authority as mandated by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The approvals were found to be granted by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) when the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT) was required for cases where more than three years had elapsed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "151", "148", "148A

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

section 147 of the Act is set aside. Consequent to setting aside of assessment order, demand notice, recovery notice and show cause notice issued pursuant thereto vide Annexures - F1, F2 and G respectively are also set aside. 9.7 Further, under the similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi Vs. ACIT

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

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Years: 2016-17

148A(b) of the Act is not barred by the time. Page 3 of 7 8. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials placed on record. The undisputed facts are that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2016-17. It is also not in dispute that

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

section 147 of the Act is set aside. Consequent to setting aside of assessment order, demand notice, recovery notice and show cause notice issued pursuant thereto vide Annexures - F1, F2 and G respectively are also set aside.” 9.5 Further, under the similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi Vs. ACIT