M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

45 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. Without sanction of the building plan, the very genesis of the agreement fails. To enable the execution of the agreement, firstly, plan is to be approved by the competent authority. In fact, the building plan was not got approved by the builder in the assessment year under consideration. Until permission is granted, a developer cannot

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

reassessment proceedings on this short ground. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently relies upon the orders of the authorities below and submits that there is no specific exclusion clause for the banking companies, and in the absence of such a clause, it is not open to us to infer the same. The submission of the learned counsel

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2(3) 2012-TIOL-532-ITAT-MUM-TM held as under:- “section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2(3) 2012-TIOL-532-ITAT-MUM-TM held as under:- “section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

45,025/-\nThus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed\nthe order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed\nbelow:-\nAY\nOrder\npassed\nu/s.\nDate of Order\nIncome offered in\nreturn u/s.139/148\nTotal Additions Made\nIncome Assessed in order\npassed by AO\n2014-15\n144\n30.08.2019\nRs.(-) 43,32,947/-\nRs.15

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings on this short ground. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently relies upon the orders of the authorities below and submits that there is no specific exclusion clause for the banking companies, and in the absence of such a clause, it is not open to us to infer the same. The submission of the learned counsel

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45,025/- Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed the order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed below:- AY Order Date of Order Income offered in Total Additions Made Income Assessed in order passed return u/s. 139/148 passed by AO u/s. 2014-15 144 30.08.2019 Rs.(-) 43,32,947/- Rs.15

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45,025/- Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed the order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed below:- AY Order Date of Order Income offered in Total Additions Made Income Assessed in order passed return u/s. 139/148 passed by AO u/s. 2014-15 144 30.08.2019 Rs.(-) 43,32,947/- Rs.15

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2), has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue notice dated 28-3-2018 under section 148(1). Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the second respondent has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings under section 129 and hence, the notice dated 14-12-2018 issued by him is also held

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

45 days for filing such return? [B] Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in not holding that the delayed return was thus to be treated as non- est return, as held by the Patna Bench of the 1TAT in the case of Chand Bihari Agarwal v/s ACTT, IT (SS) A No.5/ PAT/2010, and that that ratio

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

45. Sections 153A, 153B and 153C were inserted by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1/6/2003. They have replaced the post-search block assessment scheme in respect of any search or requisition made after 31/5/2003. Sub-section (1) of Section 153A inter alia deals with assessment in case of search or requisition. It begins with a non-obstante clause

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

45,161 from cooperative banks and commercial banks on which deduction has been denied by the AO u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, whereas the assessee has claimed it Page 6 of 18 as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and the deduction on Other Receipts of Rs.2,62,834 is also claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2

RENUKA G.,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the 1961 Act. Section 149 prescribe the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 149 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent

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)

45 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n20. We have also gone through the summary of arguments submitted by\nthe Ld.Sr. Counsel in respect of the disputed assessment years which reads\nas follows:\n Assessment Year 2017-18:\n1. It is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA No. 642/BANG/2024\nfor the AY. 2016-17 was heard

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2

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

45 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n20. We have also gone through the summary of arguments submitted by\nthe Ld.Sr. Counsel in respect of the disputed assessment years which reads\nas follows:\n Assessment Year 2017-18:\n1. It is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA No. 642/BANG/2024\nfor the AY. 2016-17 was heard