THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

2. year under consideration the notices under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") were issued during the period March 2021 to March 2022, such notices were issued through e-mail and were sent to the said e-mail address (i.e., sf.incometax@gmail.com) which did not belong to the appellant and simultaneously these notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO before concluding the assessment thereby Order without legal and proper notice is nullity under law and therefore liable to be quashed as void ab-initio. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 2 and Ground No. 3, the Order

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

delayed and in\nsuch circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as\nhas been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra).\n4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is\nwhether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax\nAct?\n5. Admittedly, the notice

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

delay is condoned;\nand the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for\nadjudication.\n\n7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the\ngrounds of cross objection as ground no. 8. During the course of the\nproceedings before us, the 1d. AR of the assessee did not press\nGround No. 7 & additional ground No.8 & pray

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

2 of 23\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment years\n2013

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

2 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

148. The ld. A.R. argued that can that be interpreted, in a genuine case like this where though the assessee is not falling in these two categories, having complied the law voluntarily by filing the return of income after obtaining provisional registration as the due date is extended due to covid allowing the assessee to file for an earlier year

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

2) of the Act and framing the\nassessment under section 144 of the Act.\n14. The above arguments of learned DR look attractive. However, the\narguments failed when examined on the touch stone of admitted facts of the\npresent case. Perusal of Para 10 of Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 and\nPara 6 of Assessment order

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

condone any delay. (Ground 10.1 for AY 2019-20 and\nsimilar ground in Ground 7.2 for AY 2018-19)\n2.\nAfter hearing the aforesaid 3 grounds, the Hon'ble Bench directed the\nLearned Department Representative (DR) file his objection on the\nPage 49 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\naforesaid grounds by 30.01.2025. The Learned DR accordingly has\nfiled

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the failure or delay in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and also submitted that jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and as such an issue can be raised

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

2) of the Act and framing the\nassessment under section 144 of the Act.\n14.\nThe above arguments of learned DR look attractive. However, the\narguments failed when examined on the touch stone of admitted facts of the\npresent case. Perusal of Para 10 of Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 and\nPara 6 of Assessment order

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. jurisdiction and improper procedure followed requires to be canceled for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. [vii]: It is also contended