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)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

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

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

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

2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\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.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the cross objections and admit the same. 14. The assessee has raised common issues in the cross objections for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we take up the CO No.27/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee raised the following grounds of cross objections: 1. “The reassessment

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

151 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi), has held that when a return was in place in the form of original return filed, the AO was required to issue a notice under section 143(2) and recourse to section 144 of the Act was incorrect. 7.4 Further during the relevant period, vide the Circular No. 21/2021 [F. No. 225/140/2021/ITA-II], dated 28.12.2021 and Circular

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

2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 1-4-2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31-3-2021 and 27-4-2021 (respectively) are concerned, we declare that the said Explanations must be read, as applicable to reassessment proceedings as may have

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

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

151 of the Act, whether the same has been obtained or not is not discernible from the order sheet noting of the learned assessing officer. [viii]. Wherefore, the appellant humbly state and submit that the entire procedure as contemplated in the statute has not been followed and without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the re- assessment orders passed

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

151 of the Act, whether the same has been obtained or not is not discernible from the order sheet noting of the learned assessing officer. [viii]. Wherefore, the appellant humbly state and submit that the entire procedure as contemplated in the statute has not been followed and without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the re- assessment orders passed

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

151 of the Act, whether the same has been obtained or not is not discernible from the order sheet noting of the learned assessing officer. [viii]. Wherefore, the appellant humbly state and submit that the entire procedure as contemplated in the statute has not been followed and without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the re- assessment orders passed

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

151 of the Act, whether the same has been obtained or not is not discernible from the order sheet noting of the learned assessing officer. [viii]. Wherefore, the appellant humbly state and submit that the entire procedure as contemplated in the statute has not been followed and without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the re- assessment orders passed

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

151 of the Act, whether the same has been obtained or not is not discernible from the order sheet noting of the learned assessing officer. [viii]. Wherefore, the appellant humbly state and submit that the entire procedure as contemplated in the statute has not been followed and without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the re- assessment orders passed