SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

142, sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.— Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRUST CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BALDWIN BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE

reassessment proceeding initiated under section148 of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs.Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 held as under: 15. We may now revert back to Section 158 BC(b) which is the material provision which requires our consideration. Section 158 BC(b) provides for enquiry and assessment. The said

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)

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment order passed by the AO. In this case, we noted that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 vide DIN & Notice No. – ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032097083(1) and assessee was allowed to file return of income within 30 days but no return was filed. Further, a notice dated 12.11.2021 DIN No ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021- 22/1036880056(1) under section

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

142 calling upon him to furnish particulars or to substantiate the entries in the returns. Though in the aforesaid paragraph, it is stated that after receipt of return, the assessee was asked to give the particulars of Page 14 of 37 transactions, he has not disclosed the interest income from the partnership concern. It is not in dispute that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

142(1) or 143(2) or after completion of assessment, whichever was earlier. If no return of income was made, objection to the jurisdiction could be entertained, if made within the time allowed by way of notice under Section 115WD(2)/142(1)/115WH(1)/148 of the Act to make the return or by notice under first proviso

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section

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

reassessment proceedings. This failure is jurisdictional and not curable, rendering the assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s 147 void.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(2)", "144", "143(1)", "133A", "139", "250", "234A", "234B", "142

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

142 or under sub-section ()1) of section\n115WH or under section 148 for making of the return or by the\nnotice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first\nproviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should\nnot be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing\nOfficer, whichever is earlier

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142-145 of case law compilation, at page reason that was recorded in the 145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142-145 of case law compilation, at page reason that was recorded in the 145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142-145 of case law compilation, at page reason that was recorded in the 145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142-145 of case law compilation, at page reason that was recorded in the 145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year”. 4.6 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. He submitted that

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

142(1) and 143(2) was issued from time to time calling for certain particulars. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence for the status mentioned as ‘Non-resident’ in the return of income vide notice dated 20.12.2016. The assessee made several submissions along with copies of passport evidencing the dates of arrival and departure

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

142(1) and 143(2) was issued from time to time calling for certain particulars. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence for the status mentioned as ‘Non-resident’ in the return of income vide notice dated 20.12.2016. The assessee made several submissions along with copies of passport evidencing the dates of arrival and departure

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

142(1) and 143(2) was issued from time to time calling for certain particulars. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence for the status mentioned as ‘Non-resident’ in the return of income vide notice dated 20.12.2016. The assessee made several submissions along with copies of passport evidencing the dates of arrival and departure

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

142(1) and 143(2) was issued from time to time calling for certain particulars. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence for the status mentioned as ‘Non-resident’ in the return of income vide notice dated 20.12.2016. The assessee made several submissions along with copies of passport evidencing the dates of arrival and departure