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

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

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

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

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

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

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

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

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

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

2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

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

145).\nIt is not the case of Revenue also, the ld. counsel for the\nassessee argued, that the survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act\nin the case of the assessee was subsequently converted into a\nsearch u/s.132 of the Act. He argued that issue of warrant of\nauthorization by the competent authority is a necessary\nprecondition for initiation of search

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

145\n22 on 30.09.2022, as per the sixth proviso to section 153B(1) of the Act.\nTherefore, the assessments completed on 24.11.2023 and 28.11.2023\nare clearly barred by limitation and are void ab initio.\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates\nthat the transaction was not complete. Therefore, we hold\nthat the addition of Rs.1,71,13,333/- made by the Ld. AO\nand sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable. The same\nis directed to be deleted.\n(iii) Sunil Kumar

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

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

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

2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 1-4-2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31-3-2021 and 27-4-2021 (respectively) are concerned, we declare that the said Explanations must be read, as applicable to reassessment proceedings as may have