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.

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 application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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

482 (SC) has held as under: 7. In the present case, the assessee-petitioner has at first point of time objected to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and has not participated or filed any return pursuant to notice. Therefore, legal representatives not having waived requirement of notice under section

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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

reassessment passed under\nclause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling\nwithin six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment\nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under\nsection 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision\nhas also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under\nclause

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

reassessment passed under\nclause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling\nwithin six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment\nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under\nsection 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision\nhas also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under\nclause

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

482, 14th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3rd Block vs. BMTC Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6th Block, Koramangala PAN – AAZPM2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA Revenue by: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR Date of hearing: 18.06.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This appeal filed

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

482/- by allowing the\nassessee to set off against capital gain from acquisition of smartplay\nstartup by aricent and accordingly we set a-side the order of the AO\nbeing without jurisdiction & bad in law.\n9.12 As the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed\nand accordingly other ground of appeal on merits of the case are\nnot adjudicated

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

482/- by allowing the\nassessee to set off against capital gain from acquisition of smartplay\nstartup by aricent and accordingly we set a-side the order of the AO\nbeing without jurisdiction & bad in law.\n9.12 As the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed\nand accordingly other ground of appeal on merits of the case are\nnot adjudicated

SHRI. VARADARAJAN NARAYAN AIYAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

482 (SC) held that: Where High Court set aside reassessment proceedings on ground that no valid notice under section 148 could

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

482/- from out of the original addition of Rs. 16,78,53,449/- made as the alleged bogus expenditure paid to sub-contractors under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the addition sustained on an erroneous impression of the facts and that the addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MS. STANY BASIL MATHIAS, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings, the AO issued several notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices, but the assessee remained non-responsive. The assessee had made investments towards Time Deposits made in accounts with in bank of Rs. 38,20,000 and Rs.76,64,482/- and also credits in Bank accounts with bank where in account value or value

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

482 (SC) ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO (2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj.) iii) Savita Kapila v. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Del.) iv) Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO (2019) taxmann.com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

482 (SC) ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO (2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj.) iii) Savita Kapila v. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Del.) iv) Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO (2019) taxmann.com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

482 (SC) ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO (2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj.) iii) Savita Kapila v. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Del.) iv) Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO (2019) taxmann.com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

482/- from out of the original addition\nof Rs.16,78,53,449/- made as the alleged bogus expenditure paid\nto sub-contractors under the facts and in the circumstances of the\nappellant's case.\n3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the addition sustained\non an erroneous impression of the facts and that the addition made