INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 43 4.12 In the case of Genpact India

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

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the search operations carried out under Section 132 of the said Act. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the foundation of the assessment made hereunder in the search operations carried out against

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

1)\nBengaluru\nPAN NO: ANBPS0920K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\n:\nSri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.R.\nRespondent by\n:\nMs. Neha Sahay, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n:\n06.08.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n:\n28.08.2024\nORDER\nPER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:\nThis is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order\nof the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 7.5.2024 in respect

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

1 before the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities providing full description of the goods being exported from the unit and invoice would bear the description that “THE SHIPMENT IS UNDER EOU”. The above requirement has been fulfilled ARE-1 forms were submitted. This is evident from seized material marked as A2/BMM/3. The above aspect also has been confirmed by accountant

KARTIKEYAS MANGANESE & IRON ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

68,45,707 8,35,91,047 NIL 9,54,36,754 2009-10 15,28,58,320 17,79,43,250 1

BHARATKUMAR RAJASHREE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

68 of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 33,45,000/- (1/3rd of the entire amount for being joint holder of the account with other two members) made by the Ld. AO is sustainable. 5.7. Hence, respectfully following the above mentioned judicial pronouncements and in view of the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal filed

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances the appellant's case. 4. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in assessment year 2017-18. He has not condoned the delay and dismissed

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,64,520/- being the interest paid on term loans under the facts under the facts and in the circumstances the appellant's case. 4. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in assessment year 2017-18. He has not condoned the delay and dismissed

M/S. TILES GALLERY ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVMOGA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

246A of the Act and prepared the appeal papers and filed the appeal. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] issued hearing notices on various dates and The Petitioner / Appellant was under a bonafide belief that the said notices would be honoured and represented by the said tax consultant. To the shock of the Petitioner / Appellant, the said notices