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

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)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

145\ntaxman.82 (Delhi). The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Delhi High Court upheld the action of\nthe AO in resorting to reopening under section 147 of the Act as the\ntime limit to initiate proceedings under section 158BD of the Act had\nexpired.\nThe learned AR contended that this case law does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

145\ntaxman.82 (Delhi). The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Delhi High Court upheld the action of\nthe AO in resorting to reopening under section 147 of the Act as the\ntime limit to initiate proceedings under section 158BD of the Act had\nexpired.\nThe learned AR contended that this case law does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

145\ntaxman.82 (Delhi). The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Delhi High Court upheld the action of\nthe AO in resorting to reopening under section 147 of the Act as the\ntime limit to initiate proceedings under section 158BD of the Act had\nexpired.\nThe learned AR contended that this case law does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

145\ntaxman.82 (Delhi). The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Delhi High Court upheld the action of\nthe AO in resorting to reopening under section 147 of the Act as the\ntime limit to initiate proceedings under section 158BD of the Act had\nexpired.\nThe learned AR contended that this case law does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

145\ntaxman.82 (Delhi). The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Delhi High Court upheld the action of\nthe AO in resorting to reopening under section 147 of the Act as the\ntime limit to initiate proceedings under section 158BD of the Act had\nexpired.\nThe learned AR contended that this case law does

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

sections 147 to 151 as per the Finance Act, 2021. (III)There appears to be a genuine non-application of the amendments as the officers of the revenue may have been under a bona fide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced.” 4. AS REGARDS THE ABSENCE OF JUSTIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO THE ADDITION

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 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

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

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

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.3 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 16 of 107 7.4 The ld. A.R. relied

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.3 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 16 of 107 7.4 The ld. A.R. relied

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.3 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 16 of 107 7.4 The ld. A.R. relied