INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

282A of the Act. Reliance is placed on\nthe following decisions:\nCases\nReuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 157\ntaxmann.com 705 (Mumbai - Trib.) (para 10 to 18)\nM/S TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED\nv. DCIT WP NO. 19053 OF 2021 (T-IT) (KAR HC)\n(para 7 & 8)\nYeshoda Electricals υ. Dy. CIT [ITA No.\n1175/B/2016, dated 03.02.2021] (Bang

CHANDRAKALA NARALA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

282A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that all electronic communications must be authenticated in the prescribed manner.That the non- compliance with the requirements of a valid DSC as prescribed under Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, invalidates the assessment order and deprives it of any legal sanctity. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case

VEERANNA MURTHY RAGHAVENDRA DEEKSHITH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

282A. (1) Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served

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

282A of the Act. Reliance is placed on\nthe following decisions:\nCases\nReuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 157\ntaxmann.com 705 (Mumbai - Trib.) (para 10 to 18)\nM/S TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED\nv. DCIT WP NO. 19053 OF 2021 (T-IT) (KAR HC)\n(para 7 & 8)\nYeshoda Electricals υ. Dy. CIT [ITA No.\n1175/B/2016, dated 03.02.2021] (Bang

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

282A of the Act. Reliance is placed on\nthe following decisions:\n\nCases\nReuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 157\ntaxmann.com 705 (Mumbai - Trib.) (para 10 to 18)\nM/S TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED\nv. DCIT WP NO. 19053 OF 2021 (T-IT) (KAR HC)\n(para 7 & 8)\nYeshoda Electricals υ. Dy. CIT [ITA No.\n1175/B/2016, dated

SHWETA GADAY,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BIDAR

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

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

reassessment neither during the assessment proceedings nor at the time of proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore now the said plea cannot be raised for the first time. We do not accept the said contention since the legal plea can be raised at any time. 12. The additional legal ground now raised by the assessee is that the approval