KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY MS KHODAY ESHWARSA AND SONS),BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BGL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed\nfor statistical purposes

292B of the Act.\n16.\nWe are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17.\nAccordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5\nThe above view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case\nof PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal reported in 165 taxmann.com 2 has been\naffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 165 taxmann.com

M/S. RAKSHA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

condoned by the NFAC. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect by the NFAC. Since the appeal of the assessee before NFAC failed due to the delay in filing of appeal, the appeal of the assessee was treated as dismissed u/s. 250r r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits

LATE. SRI. MADAIAH MANJUNATH L/H BY SRI SACHIDANANDA SWAMY & ORS. ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), BENGLAURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2015-16

292B of the Act. Hence, in the absence of issuance of notice to the Legal Representatives or the Legatees of Page 3 of 10 the Will executed by the deceased assessee, the impugned order passed against a dead person is erroneous and unsustainable in law. 5. That during the Assessment Year, the Assessee has renovated the theatre fully by demolishing

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

JOINT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LTU, BANGALORE vs. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Hewelett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.), 24, Salarpuria Arenam Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 030. … Appellant Pan:Aaacc9862F Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2019 O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bengaluru, Dated 30/06/2014 For The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order.

section 292B in upholding the validity of the assessment order; and 6. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in interpreting the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Hewlett-Packard India Private limited for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2002-03 wherein the appeal of the revenue was disposed of without altering the decision

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LTU, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Hewelett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.), 24, Salarpuria Arenam Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 030. … Appellant Pan:Aaacc9862F Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2019 O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bengaluru, Dated 30/06/2014 For The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order.

section 292B in upholding the validity of the assessment order; and 6. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in interpreting the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Hewlett-Packard India Private limited for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2002-03 wherein the appeal of the revenue was disposed of without altering the decision

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition

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

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending 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. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment