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

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(b) of the Act dated 26/03/2022, we take note of the fact that the prime allegation of the AO was that the assessee had made certain investments in time deposits, cash deposits in Saving Bank

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

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 30/10/2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising of 17 pages containing therein the copy of notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, copy of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, copy of notice u/s

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12/12/2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us the assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 154 pages containing therein the written submissions, notice u/s. 148(b), order u/s. 148(d), notice u/s. 148, sale deed dated 01/04/2015, affidavit of Mrs. Kalavathi K dated 19/03/2025, copy

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(d) of the Act before directly jumped into the issuing of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The clause (d) of section 148A of the Act requires the AO to decide on the basis of material available

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

147 r.w.s\n144C(13) of the Act dated 27/01/2025, the assessee has filed the\npresent appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a\npaper book containing therein the copy of the notice u/s 148A(b) of\nthe Act, Copy of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, Copy of notice u/s\n148 of the Act along with

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 notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

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

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (ld. AO) was dismissed. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. General Ground 1.1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (ld. AO) was dismissed. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. General Ground 1.1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.04.2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer was dismissed. 5. The counsel for the Assessee stated that the Appeal for Assessment Year 2016–17 and 2017–18 may be taken as the lead appeal. In this case he challenges the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range 7(1), Bangalore u/s

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.04.2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer was dismissed. 5. The counsel for the Assessee stated that the Appeal for Assessment Year 2016–17 and 2017–18 may be taken as the lead appeal. In this case he challenges the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range 7(1), Bangalore u/s

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(d), issued after April

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

148A of the Act, aftger 01.04.2021. In the remand report submitted by the AO, the AO has stated tht the notice under section 148 of the Act was generated on 31.03.2021 and from the Order sheet nowhere it is mentioned that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 . However, in the e-portal it is iclearly mentioned that the notice

KEMPAIAH NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. NA, NA

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

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

Reassessment Scheme 6. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the detailed responses and evidences filed before the Assessing Officer, justifying the claim of indexed costs of acquisition and improvement and exemption u/s. 54F. And for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced later, it is humbly prayed that this appeal may be admitted, adjudicated

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 148 read with section 148A of the Act are bad in law. C. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO COMPUTATION OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS ("LTCG"): 8. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in computing LTCG of Rs.59,53,488/-. 9. The CIT(A) and AO erred

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

148A of the Act, aftger 01.04.2021. In the remand report submitted by the AO dated 19.06.2024, the AO has stated tht the notice under section 148 of the Act was generated on 31.03.2021 and from the Order sheet nowhere it is mentioned that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021. However, in the e-portal it is clearly mentioned that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

148A of the Act, aftger 01.04.2021. In the remand report submitted by the AO dated 19.06.2024, the AO has stated tht the notice under section 148 of the Act was generated on 31.03.2021 and from the Order sheet nowhere it is mentioned that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021. However, in the e-portal it is clearly mentioned that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

148A of the Act, aftger 01.04.2021. In the remand report submitted by the AO dated 19.06.2024, the AO has stated tht the notice under section 148 of the Act was generated on 31.03.2021 and from the Order sheet nowhere it is mentioned that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021. However, in the e-portal it is clearly mentioned that