SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

54F in the said non est 'return of income' could not be allowed. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid observation of the lower authorities. We are of the considered view that though a statutory obligation is cast upon the assessee to comply with the notice issued u/s 148 and file the 'return of income' in compliance

SMT. K.R.YASHODHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

u/s. 54F of the Act, as the appellant had not claimed the same in the return of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 08/03/2024, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed IT(IT)A No.813/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 24 to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income determined by the learned

SRI. G.A. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aanhr 4650 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

147 of the Act have not been complied with and consequently, the order of re-assessment passed by the learned A.O. requires to be cancelled. 2[c]. The reassessment u/s.147 of the Act is patently illegal as the A.O. assumed jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act only to verify the correctness of the claims made by the appellant and there

SRI RAJA REDDY KIRAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. Raja Reddy Kiran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S. Shiv Service Centre, Ward - 1(2)(3), #14/1, Murphy Road, Bangalore. Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Adipk 7782 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

reassessment proceedings and the AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2013, wherein the capital gains arising on account of JDA dated 30.01.2006 was determined at Rs.16,12,844/-. The assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of the capital gains was rejected

R. JAYANNA HUF,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment is not a "second chance" to rectify omissions. . Page 3 of 6 (b) The said judgement emphasized that issues settled in the original assessment (e.g., eligibility for deductions) cannot be re-litigated during appeals. The appellant's failure to disclose the JDA transaction or claim Section 54F at the appropriate stage renders the claim invalid. (B) Secondly no evidence

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

section 54F of the Act, capital gain was invested in construction of residential house, but the fact that actual construction was completed beyond the period contemplated u/s. 54F of the Act was no ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F. Applying the same analogy, the assessee pleaded that the capital gain in question should be allowed as deduction

SRI DAMODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Damodar Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 4[2][2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Aizpr 4884 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 5 of 13 [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

54F by the learned assessing officer, which has rendered the impugned Notice u/s 148 invalid.” Accordingly the above additional grounds stands admitted. 7. The Ld.AR submitted that “reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is a condition precedent to be satisfied before issuing the Notice u/s 148. It is settled law that the ‘belief’ entertained

SRI SRINIVAS REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Srinivas Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 102, Sai Deep Heera Apartments, Ward – 7[2], 6Th Main, 1St Cross, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avfpr 6754 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income

SMT ROOPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Roopa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 7[2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avwpr 4000 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

147 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on the facts and circumstances of the case. [v] The learned Commissioner of Income -Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment is further bad in law and void ab initio as the learned assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals

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

MUNIRAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI ,CHIKKABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s 54F of\nthe Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s.234A and 234B of\nthe Act. The interest levied being erroneous is liable to be deleted on the facts\nand circumstances of the case.\n10. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter