MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in 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

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification\nfor cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba\nJewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short\nthat regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.”\n15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

reassessment. Accordingly, the AO prepared draft Assessment Order under section 144C of the Act vide Order dated 31.03.2022 and issued to the assessee. Since assessee is a non- resident, therefore, the case was taken up by the International Taxation Department. The assessee did not challenge the draft Assessment Order passed under section 144C of the Act before

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

reassessment order after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2011-12, though there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is contrary to first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Ground relating to Corporate Tax 4. The learned

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Act, is valid.” 6.3 Thereafter, observed that decision rendered by coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) to be followed. Further, the clause [aa] of section 139[9] of the Act came to be inserted by Finance

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Act, is valid.” 6.3 Thereafter, observed that decision rendered by coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) to be followed. Further, the clause [aa] of section 139[9] of the Act came to be inserted by Finance

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Act, is valid.” 6.3 Thereafter, observed that decision rendered by coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) to be followed. Further, the clause [aa] of section 139[9] of the Act came to be inserted by Finance

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Act, is valid.” 6.3 Thereafter, observed that decision rendered by coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) to be followed. Further, the clause [aa] of section 139[9] of the Act came to be inserted by Finance

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Act, is valid.” 6.3 Thereafter, observed that decision rendered by coordinate bench of Bangalore Tribunal as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) to be followed. Further, the clause [aa] of section 139[9] of the Act came to be inserted by Finance

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing