DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued.” 7. Further he also strongly relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jora Singh (2013) 32 taxmann.com 263 (Allahabad) and submitted that the assessee’s case is also squarely covered by this judgement and the facts are similar

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

section 147 are did not exist and therefore issue of notice u/s 148 was unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded by the Appellant are only reason for suspicion and not reasons to believe and accordingly the reassessment proceeding is not in accordance with

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

10 of 40  The larger Bench of Supreme Court in S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (1963) 49 ITR 1 (SC) held as under:- “I now take up the second facet of the same question. On this aspect of the case both the learned single judge (Desai J.) and the appellate court (Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar

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

10 of 40  The larger Bench of Supreme Court in S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (1963) 49 ITR 1 (SC) held as under:- “I now take up the second facet of the same question. On this aspect of the case both the learned single judge (Desai J.) and the appellate court (Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar

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

10 of 38 the hands of assessee as income. Being so, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition on this count. Cross Objection (CO No.19/Bang/2019) 14. Now we take up the Cross Objections of the assessee which goes to the root of the matter. Ground No.1 is with regard to maintainability of the revenue’s appeal as regards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision relied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

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

10(1), Bangalore prior to 2.5.2013. Consequent to order ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 64 u/s. 127 dated 2.5.2013, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to DCIT, Circle 2(1) / ACIT 4(2)(1), Bangalore. Subsequently, based on CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to be assessed u/s. PCIT-4, Bangalore. Afterwards, there

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

10(1), Bangalore prior to 2.5.2013. Consequent to order ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 64 u/s. 127 dated 2.5.2013, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to DCIT, Circle 2(1) / ACIT 4(2)(1), Bangalore. Subsequently, based on CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to be assessed u/s. PCIT-4, Bangalore. Afterwards, there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE vs. MR. M R SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

10 of 26 depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year

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

10 of 23 "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else - far less the assessed- to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the appellant's claims in this appeal in conjunction with the pending quantum appeal. “2.5 Against the order u/s 154, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 25.12.2021 the CIT(A) vide his order dated 21.6.2022 discussed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is before this Tribunal against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the appellant's claims in this appeal in conjunction with the pending quantum appeal. “2.5 Against the order u/s 154, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 25.12.2021 the CIT(A) vide his order dated 21.6.2022 discussed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is before this Tribunal against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the appellant's claims in this appeal in conjunction with the pending quantum appeal. “2.5 Against the order u/s 154, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 25.12.2021 the CIT(A) vide his order dated 21.6.2022 discussed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is before this Tribunal against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the appellant's claims in this appeal in conjunction with the pending quantum appeal. “2.5 Against the order u/s 154, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 25.12.2021 the CIT(A) vide his order dated 21.6.2022 discussed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is before this Tribunal against

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

26,054/-. The return was processed under scrutiny and statutory notices were issued in response to which the representatives of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. 2.3 As assessee was involved in international transactions, reference was made u/s. 92CA to the Ld.TPO. The Ld.TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment to the ALP of assessee

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

10 of the Act. The AR was asked to explain the same and reasons for the difference. From the break up credits to various schedules furnished by the assessee, the AO observed no mismatch is noticed. 4. The disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D: According to the AO, during the year under consideration the assessee has made huge investment

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,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

26. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee for AY 2010-11 and she drew our attention to the relevant order sheet entry dated 26.9.2017 and submitted that on 26.9.2017 in response to notice u/s. 143(2), the AR of the assessee Shri G.S. Reddy, ITP appeared before