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)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation and there is no transfer of assets in EOU Unit 1. 3.13 Employee benefit cost: The following table demonstrates that the employee benefit cost of EOU-I was not affected by the formation of new units AY of Unit commencement of A Y 2008-09 A Y 2009-10 A Y 2010-11 Operations SEZ - S2 (Unit

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

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

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

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

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

Section 292B of the Act and they render the entire\nproceedings null and void.\nPage 58 of 147\n35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to\nany steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to\nthe respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been\nprepared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 (Madras), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its decision in Appeal Nos 1026 and 1027 of 2008 dated July 29, 2008 held that in view of the decision in the case of CIT v KM Panchayappan (2008) 304 ITR 264 (Mad) , it was held that the Assessing Officer was barred in 6 initiating proceedings under section

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

249(4) is NIL. 3. The impugned assessment order is bad in law and void: (i) Because, mere information that immovable property of the Appellant was sold for Rs 67,67,000/- did not lead to any inference of income escaping assessment, let alone any formation of 'reason to believe', which is a condition precedent for issue of the Notice

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

depreciation is to be allowed @ 60% on the CG/TX cards and switches, etc. This ground is allowed in favour of assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - Grounds 21 to 21.4 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned a dividend income of Rs.2,04,09,795 which was claimed as exempt after disallowing a sum of Rs.1

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

depreciation is to be allowed @ 60% on the CG/TX cards and switches, etc. This ground is allowed in favour of assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - Grounds 21 to 21.4 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned a dividend income of Rs.2,04,09,795 which was claimed as exempt after disallowing a sum of Rs.1

M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

249 (SC)] 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has collected the service taxes and not paid to the Government exchequer till the due date of filing of return of income. Hence, it is to be treated as income of the assessee to be assessed for the assessment year 5 M/s.Wyzmindz Solutions Pvt.Ltd. under

VENA ENERGY PATAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

4 of 26 chosen Comparable Uncontrollable Price [CUP] method as the most appropriate method (MAM) for determination of the arm’s length price [ALP]. Accordingly, the assessee applied certain filters to arrive at the comparable companies. The assessee selected a range of 10% (35th percentile) to 16% (65th percentile) as arm’s length range with the median

VENA ENERGY MH WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

4 of 26 chosen Comparable Uncontrollable Price [CUP] method as the most appropriate method (MAM) for determination of the arm’s length price [ALP]. Accordingly, the assessee applied certain filters to arrive at the comparable companies. The assessee selected a range of 10% (35th percentile) to 16% (65th percentile) as arm’s length range with the median