M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The Appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary, at the time of hearing. 11) For these and other grounds that

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M.RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR. M.RAMESH,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

reassessment ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 15 based on such statement is liable to be quashed under the facts of the case. 7. The levy of interest under sections 234A

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

reassessment regime introduced with effect from\n01.04.2021.\nGROUND RELATING TO FACELESS ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED:\nThe learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed under section 147 in a\nfaceless manner provided under section 144B without appreciating that the Appellant\ndoes not belong to the class of persons that are notified by the Board and in whose case\nassessment shall

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

reassessment regime introduced with effect from\n01.04.2021.\n6. GROUND RELATING TO FACELESS ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED:\n6. 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed under section 147 in a\nfaceless manner provided under section 144B without appreciating that the Appellant\ndoes not belong to the class of persons that are notified by the Board and in whose

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceeding is not in accordance with law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 4,05,37,500/- on account of unaccounted purchases is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Commissioner of Income

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice the levy of interest under section 234 A, 234B and 234C are bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernable and are wrong on the facts

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 20. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No.738/Bang/2015). 4. Before us, apart from putting forth oral arguments