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

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

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

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

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

reopened based on the borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not recorded independent satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 7. The assessment framed on Appellant was not correct as per provisions of the Act as D S Nandish has stated in survey statement that he has deposited cash in Appellant Bank account. Hence it should have been

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

reopened based on the borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not recorded independent satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 7. The assessment framed on Appellant was not correct as per provisions of the Act as D S Nandish has stated in survey statement that he has deposited cash in Appellant Bank account. Hence it should have been

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

reopened based on the borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not recorded independent satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 7. The assessment framed on Appellant was not correct as per provisions of the Act as D S Nandish has stated in survey statement that he has deposited cash in Appellant Bank account. Hence it should have been

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, 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

reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act and not provided copy of reasons recorded by AO. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in assuming that without recording of reasons, there will not be approval from PCIT. The CIT (A) has made an assumption instead of obtaining the assessment records from AO for verification of the copy of reasons recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BENGALURU vs. G. TEX INC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS as per section 195(1) of the Act was not made by the assessee. Therefore, to disallow this expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act assessment was reopened

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

reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act and not provided copy of reasons recorded by AO. 3. The CIT (A) has erred in assuming that without recording of reasons, there will not be approval from PCIT. The CIT (A) has made an assumption instead of obtaining the assessment records from AO for verification of the copy of reasons recorded

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

In the result the ITA No

reopening of assessment u/s.148\nof the Act and not provided copy of reasons recorded by AO.\n\n3.\nThe CIT (A) has erred in assuming that without recording of reasons,\nthere will not be approval from PCIT. The CIT (A) has made an\nassumption instead of obtaining the assessment records from AO for\nverification of the copy of reasons recorded

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

reopening the case has followed the procedure in entirety. The DIN is also quoted in the respective documents. She ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 16 further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide the details of cash deposits in terms of section 68 of the Act. She further

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

reopening the case has followed the procedure in entirety. The DIN is also quoted in the respective documents. She ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 16 further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide the details of cash deposits in terms of section 68 of the Act. She further

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU 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.

reopening the case has followed the procedure in entirety. The DIN is also quoted in the respective documents. She ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 16 further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide the details of cash deposits in terms of section 68 of the Act. She further

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

reopening the case has followed the procedure in entirety. The DIN is also quoted in the respective documents. She ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 16 further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide the details of cash deposits in terms of section 68 of the Act. She further

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopened and that income also shall become the subject matter of said proceedings. In that view of the matter the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not justified. The Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (2012) 82 CCH 113 Del HC, relied

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopened and that income also shall become the subject matter of said proceedings. In that view of the matter the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not justified. The Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (2012) 82 CCH 113 Del HC, relied

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

reopening of assessment u/s.148\nof the Act and not provided copy of reasons recorded by AO.\n\n2. The CIT (A) has erred in assuming that without recording of reasons,\nthere will not be approval from PCIT. The CIT (A) has made an\nassumption instead of obtaining the assessment records from AO for\nverification of the copy of reasons recorded

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

reopening of the assessment after 4 years is bad in law. The assessee’s main contention was the satisfaction of the AO and is reason to believe was based on change of opinion and hence not valid. The ld. CIT(A) held that because the assessee had filed the audit report and the financial statements which included the information regarding

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU 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

reopening of assessment u/s.148\nof the Act and not provided copy of reasons recorded by AO.\n2. The CIT (A) has erred in assuming that without recording of reasons,\nthere will not be approval from PCIT. The CIT (A) has made an\nassumption instead of obtaining the assessment records from AO for\nverification of the copy of reasons recorded

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 53 of 147 B. Both Sections 153A and 153C embody