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

148A of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19/04/2022. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 18/05/2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,91,920/-. Accordingly, the notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued along

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

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

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

148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit, is legally invalid. VI The manual notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is invalid in law due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in it. Page

GOPAL ANIL KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,17,98,825/- and addition u/s 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 90,50,000/-, the same were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 5. Again, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 10/02/2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

148A – 206, order giving effect, – 44, rectification – 48, modified assessment orders – 11, verification – 26, deemed information – 6, and notice under section 153C – 7 were pending with him. Therefore, the total No. of 541 actions were pending in the month of March. 8. Over and above, it was stated that there were more than 73 audit objections having tax impact

MR. AWAJI GANAPATHI BHAT VITTAL,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

148A (d) was passed on 26th of March 2022. The AO noted that Page 3 of 11 the assessee has admitted income during the course of survey proceedings and filed the return of income however the same return of income was treated as invalid and therefore the reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment. 4. Facts show that

TUFFWUD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The assesse has filled additional grounds of appeal which are as under vide dated 17.03.2025 b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has transacted through banking channels and no instance of cash transaction was discernable to infer any dubious transaction of share issuance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. M/S. MANASA MEDICALS, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

148A. Due to this ensuing cascading effect, the filing of appeal was delayed by 38 days and therefore it was prayed that the delay may be condoned. 4. We have heard the rival submissions on the condonation of delay in fling the appeal. Following the Supreme Court decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

148A(d) of the Act, it was noted that assessee had remitted payment of Rs.49,39,468/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 to the foreign company M/s. Schuster Aviation Tubes Ltd., (SATL) and not deducted TDS as per the provision made under section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, various notices were issued to the assessee but there

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

148A of the Act.\nAlso, there were 28 time barring assessments u/s 147\nwhich were to be completed before 31.03.2023. Further,\nduring the March time barring time, the focus was totally on\ncompletion of assessment proceedings and the filing of appeal\nfor the above-mentioned case in ITAT was missed out\ninadvertently. This omission has been recently observed on\nreconciliation

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

148A of the Act effective from 01.04.2021. 2.5. The learned assessing officer has erred in not appreciating the fact that the procedure for re-assessment is a procedural law and hence has to be read as it exists on the date on which such procedure is being carried out and not the date on which the proceedings were initiated

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

148A of the Act effective from 01.04.2021. 2.5. The learned assessing officer has erred in not appreciating the fact that the procedure for re-assessment is a procedural law and hence has to be read as it exists on the date on which such procedure is being carried out and not the date on which the proceedings were initiated

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

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

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

Section Amount (Rs.) Ultratech Cement 194C 12,41,23,184 Vasavadatta Cement 194C 5,68,01,670 . ITA No.565 /Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 Total 18,09,24,854 6. Considering the above receipts of Rs. 18,09,24,854 reflected in Form 26AS, the AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by applying a profit rate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS (UK) LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO of the assesseeare dismissed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.39/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

68 Upper Thames Street, Bangalore. London EC4V3BJ, United Kingdom 999999. PAN :AAHCT 0782 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT CONo.8/Bang/2025 (in ITA No.39/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Tata Communications (UK) Ltd., Vs. DCIT (International United Kingdom 999999. Taxation), PAN :AAHCT 0782 C Circle –2(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ketan Ved, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT

LOKASEVANIRATHA D KONGADIYAPPA MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,DODDALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

In the result both the Appeals are restored back to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

148A(b) dated 31.03.2022 for the reason that Assessee has tax deduction at source on interest income and further Assessee has deposited cash in its bank accounts. The notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued on 31.03.2022 in response to which the Assessee filed its return of income on 20.02.2023 declaring total income