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

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

234D is against the express provisions of the law. 17. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 3.2 In written submissions, the assessee has submitted as under :- “ The assessee is a Public Limited

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 234D. 19. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest u/s 234A & u/s 234B of the I T Act. 20. Without prejudice to the appellant’s right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority, the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest u/s 234A & u/s 234B of the Act. 21. The levy of interest u/s 234D

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 have not been satisfied before assumption of jurisdiction and even at the time of conclusion of the assessment. 6. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 7. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the statement given by the Appellant that he was not owning

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 have not been satisfied before assumption of jurisdiction and even at the time of conclusion of the assessment. 6. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 7. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the statement given by the Appellant that he was not owning

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

234D of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 8. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

section 234B, 234D and 244A of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case 6. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

section 234B, 234D and 244A of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case 6. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S. SUJATHA NARAYANAN & ASSOCIATES,HASSAN vs. ACIT, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. ACIT, 266 ITR 664 (All) and in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. ADIT

DCIT, HASSAN vs. M/S SUJATHA NARAYAN & ASSOCIATES, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return already filed are not terminated. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. ACIT, 266 ITR 664 (All) and in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. ADIT

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

reassessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled.” 6. It has been repeatedly held by various judicial authorities that in the absence of proper recording of reasons that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary facts relevant

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

reassessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled.” 6. It has been repeatedly held by various judicial authorities that in the absence of proper recording of reasons that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary facts relevant

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

234D of the Act amounting to INR 33,19,969/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 11 & original ground no. 11) Additional grounds of appeal filed on 13.03.2017 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO /DRP erred in not excluding Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.' in its comparability analysis even though

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

234D of the Act amounting to INR 33,19,969/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 11 & original ground no. 11) Additional grounds of appeal filed on 13.03.2017 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO /DRP erred in not excluding Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.' in its comparability analysis even though

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

234D is consequential in nature. 13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.1 & 17 are general in nature. 15. Ground Nos. 2 to 9: Disallowance u/s. 14A: During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has received certain exempt income but there is no disallowance made by the assessee

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

234D is consequential in nature. 13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.1 & 17 are general in nature. 15. Ground Nos. 2 to 9: Disallowance u/s. 14A: During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has received certain exempt income but there is no disallowance made by the assessee