K.NAGESH ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly Grounds 6-7 raised by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14

292B of the Act. Page 11 of 23 21. We note that, limitation for issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act for year under consideration expires on 30/09/2014. We also note that, Ld.AO issued notice again under section 143(2) of the Act, on 04/09/2014, placed at page 56 of paper book within period of limitation. We also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292B of the Act would stand frustrated/defeated. The intent of the Legislature is clear from the language employed in this provision which states that a defective notice, such as the one in the present case, cannot be declared invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if the notice in 'substance' and in 'effect' is in conformity with

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292B of the Act would stand frustrated/defeated. The intent of the Legislature is clear from the language employed in this provision which states that a defective notice, such as the one in the present case, cannot be declared invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if the notice in 'substance' and in 'effect' is in conformity with

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

Capital Gains claim u/s54B of the Act. From the above it is clear that the AO had considered the return filed by the assessee and proposed to disallow the claim for which a notice u/s 148 was issued asking the assessee to file a return. The assessee considered the notice and replied that the return filed

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains”. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 5 of 14 3.2 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on that ground that in the present case as there is not even Sanction Plan

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

292B and Section 144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain and added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.60,00,000 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12.1.2024, the legal heir of the assessee

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing an undue