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

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

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

246A or an application for revision under section 264\nshall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in\nclause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has\nbeen made accepting the application.”\n5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider\nsection 270AA

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

reassess the income of the assessee and accordingly, the proceeding which has been concluded is invalid and bad in law. Further, the assessee has also raised ground relating to AO having not followed proper procedure before and after issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and as well as sanction u/s 151 of the Act and accordingly proceedings

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

147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the [Principal Commissioner or]Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; [ (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (vi)or sub-clause (via)of clause

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

147 of the Act on almost similar grounds for these two assessment years 2009-10 & 2010- 11 as he had done for Assessment Year 2008-09. 16.1 Ground No.7 (For Asst. Years 2008-09 to 2010-11) - We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the written submissions filed, the judicial pronouncements cited and the other material

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30/03/2022.  Being aggrieved by the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the appellant has preferred an appeal before your Honour as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, which is beyond time by about 34 days