ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption under section

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

reassessment is further bad in law and void-ab-initio as the learned Assessing officer had no reasons to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have granted benefit of exemption 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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

reassessment proceedings and the same cannot be held bad in law as per the provisions of section 292BB. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

reassess and is thus vague, consequently the assessment order passed on an invalid notice is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below have not dealt in the respective order on the objection filed by the appellant in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and have also not provided the satisfaction

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

234 B of the Act in the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act and the order does not indicate the rate, period and on what quantum the interest is levied and thus the computation of interest is not Page 3 of 15 discernable from the order. The additions made by Assessing Officer were

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave