WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] vide his appellate order dated 22/02/2022 for all the six assessment years, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], has preferred these present appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee wishes

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

reassess the total income on the basis of the material found in the course of any other proceedings or the material in possession of the Assessing Officer or any other material found in the course of search. In view of the above law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Canara Housing, though the material found

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

reassessment, direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order.] (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, as the case

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment proceedings. 3.4 The revenue has sought to place reliance upon the decision in the case of Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11844 OF 2016 JUNE 1, 2018, for the proposition that the jurisdiction cannot be questioned after a month of issuance

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the search operations carried out under Section 132 of the said Act. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the foundation of the assessment made hereunder in the search operations carried out against the petitioners

M/S. EDUCATIONAL CONCEPTS INNOVATORS INTERNATIONAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

246A of the Act for non-payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act and thereby not adjudicating the issues on merits of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n3.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in erroneously holding that the appellant

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

reassessment passed directed the learned assessing to make fresh assessment.  The learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of revision passed by the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 263 of the Act, dated 12/03/2024, issued various statutory notices calling for details and explanations. The learned assessing officer in the impugned proceedings of give effect

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:

reassessment in the hands of the Appellant and consequently the notice is issued without due application of mind, making the notice bad at law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the approval issued u/s 151 to the Assessing Officer is bad at law for the reason