M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

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

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

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

deduction u/s.54F. The contention of the Page 6 of 23 learned AR that no new materials is found by the AO and that the reopening is done based on a mere change of opinion merits consideration. 8. It is relevant here to look at the provisions of section 147 which reads as follows 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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.\n\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 19. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded do not state what is the amount of income chargeable to tax that as escaped assessment

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

deduction, allowance or relief in the return ;” 7.4 From the above it is clear that, the provisions of Section 147 are applicable to the cases where there was no assessment earlier. Hence it is submitted that, the AO has correctly chosen the words Re-assessment/Re-computation in the notice u/s 148. 7.5 It is a settled position of law that

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

reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that nay income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 14. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded do not state what is the amount of income chargeable to tax that as escaped assessment

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

reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that nay income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 14. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded do not state what is the amount of income chargeable to tax that as escaped assessment

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9.\nFrom perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

deducting the goodwill amounting to Rs.32,76,86,270 from the sale consideration received. The assessee filed objections against the reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 13.12.2016 questioning the validity of the proceedings. However, the AO overlooking the objection of the assessee, passed combined assessment order giving effect to the ITAT Order dated 22.7.2015 and 12.8.2015 and the reassessment order

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment 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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LTU),, BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

deduction under section 80IA, having been made subject matter of appeal before the CIT (A) and the ITAT, the said issue of determination of profit for the purpose of 801A(10) has merged with the order of the appellate authorities as a whole and hence, it was no longer amenable to the reassessment proceedings u/s 147