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

reassessment or re- computation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve. On the assessee notice requiring him to do so under the said section within such period mentioned therein. A notice under this section is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under section 147. The notice would be invalid if it .does not specify the correct

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

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

29,30,57,56,81,20,46,19,\n63which were purchased by the assessee after making the sale\nagreements in the F.Y-2006-07.\n4.4 The chart at above page No.13 to 16 under the column “Sale\nPrice\" indicates the \"Purchase Value\" of the shops and also\ndescribes the premium paid in respect of shop numbers 46, 19,\n63.In the chart

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

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

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

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

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

10& page no. 11 of Paper Book of Appeal Memo) In this regard, it is submitted that, a. The appellant submits that after the issue of initial notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 and submission of the return by the appellant in response to the same, it took another 9 months for the learned AO to issue show cause notice u/s

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

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

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

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

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

29-09-2011 for the AY 2011-12, the assessee has not shown any advance received amount in the Balance sheet and no mention of any land under dispute is made during the assessment proceedings for the AY 2011-12. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed 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.

29), which reads as follows : "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in section 147.—A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning

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.

29), which reads as follows : "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in section 147.—A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning

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

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

29. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that entire statute should be read as a whole and the same has to be considered thereafter Chapter by Chapter and then Section by Section and ultimately Word by Word. It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer does not have any jurisdiction to review its own order

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

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

29 of the Act. 5.3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the settled position that non-recovery of employee's advance were directly linked with the business of the Appellant and therefore, it was in the nature of business loss allowable under Section 28 of the Act. 6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections