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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess income of such “other person” in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the ld. AO being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1, Mangalore having recorded the satisfaction for proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after duly recording the satisfaction as follows: “A search was initiated under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 292B of the Act. The\nCourt observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises\nmerely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect\nit is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.\nSince no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

Section 292B of the Act. The\nCourt observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises\nmerely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect\nit is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.\nSince no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

292B of the Act as the same constitutes a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation. 11. This Court in the case of CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 380 (Bom.) in Writ Petition No. 2462 of 2022 whilst allowing the Petition has held that the stand of the revenue that the reassessment was justified

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provision of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provision of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provision of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

292B of the Act as the same constitutes a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation. 11. This Court in the case of CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 380 (Bom.) in Writ Petition No. 2462 of 2022 whilst allowing the Petition has held that the stand of the revenue that the reassessment was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provision of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

292B is applicable ROI, assessment, notice, summons and does not apply to satisfaction note; (ii) As mentioned earlier, recording of satisfaction through satisfaction note is mandatory. This jurisdictional requirement goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C. Not recording or blank satisfaction note cannot conceivably be said to be in conformity with

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

292B is applicable ROI, assessment, notice, summons and does not apply to satisfaction note; (ii) As mentioned earlier, recording of satisfaction through satisfaction note is mandatory. This jurisdictional requirement goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C. Not recording or blank satisfaction note cannot conceivably be said to be in conformity with

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

292B is applicable ROI, assessment, notice, summons and does not apply to satisfaction note; (ii) As mentioned earlier, recording of satisfaction through satisfaction note is mandatory. This jurisdictional requirement goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C. Not recording or blank satisfaction note cannot conceivably be said to be in conformity with

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

292B is applicable ROI, assessment, notice, summons and does not apply to satisfaction note; (ii) As mentioned earlier, recording of satisfaction through satisfaction note is mandatory. This jurisdictional requirement goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C. Not recording or blank satisfaction note cannot conceivably be said to be in conformity with

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

292B is applicable ROI, assessment, notice, summons and does not apply to satisfaction note; (ii) As mentioned earlier, recording of satisfaction through satisfaction note is mandatory. This jurisdictional requirement goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C. Not recording or blank satisfaction note cannot conceivably be said to be in conformity with