IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.” 5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider section 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68 filed by the Assessee Company on 06/10/2022

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

144B of the Act by holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking clause (a) to Explanation - 2 to Section 263 of the Act for passing order under Section

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

144B of the Act on 28.2.2023 by making disallowance of Rs.91,47,331/- claimed deduction as cost of improvement. On going through the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings on or before the completion of assessment proceedings on the ground of under reporting of income in consequence of mis reporting. Further, on going through the show cause notice

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, vide Order dated 30.03.2022, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,68,21,57,803/-. 5. Aggrieved by reassessment

KUMARSWAMY GANGASHARAISH KALLUR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO has not initiated penalty proceedings under ection271B of the Act in the Assessment Order. Therefore, the Order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned Pr.CIT noted that the Order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12.1.2024, the legal heir of the assessee Smt. Sarojamma preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. However, due to the technical issues on the Income Tax Portal, as she was unable to add her name as legal heir/authorized

MUSHEER AHAMED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of Page 2 of 8 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated

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 and directed to complete the proceedings with certain directions vide order dated 23.03.2024. In the case on hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee has strongly submitted that order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

GARJE RUDRAPPA JAYANNA ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, various opportunities were given to the assessee. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for not filing income tax return. Therefore, addition made by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to notice issued under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 2.1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not appreciating that an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for the relevant assessment year. The learned assessing officer has erred in reassessing

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to notice issued under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 2.1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not appreciating that an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for the relevant assessment year. The learned assessing officer has erred in reassessing

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022 assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 5,48,500/- as against the income reported / returned by the appellant of Rs. 5,48,500/-.  Thereafter, revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated by the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru – 1, Bengaluru by issuance of Show Cause

HOLY SPIRIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY CONVENT OF HOLY SPIRIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

144B of the Act is bad in law as the entire re-assessment proceedings are on account of a mere change of opinion which is impermissible in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act has several material defects in as much

SRI. CHERIYAN ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessments under s. 147 the procedure laid down in sections subsequent to s. 139, including that laid down by s. 144B

MRS. JEANETTE DSOUZA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. VINOD DSOUZA),MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

144B of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) by the National faceless assessment Centre (the learned AO) was dismissed. Page 2 of 5 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the fact that the learned CIT is confirmed the order of the learned assessing officer where the assessee earned a Long term capital gain on sale of property has been

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)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

KOCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

144B of the Income Tax Act. The Apex Court while upholding the view of the High Court observed that faceless assessment scheme came into being recently and therefore, the revenue ought to have been given some leverage to correct themselves and take corrective measures. The said observation of the Supreme Court is related to the faceless regime and cannot