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)

11,96,154 10,96,150 9,00,000 2. The manual copy of the return of income filed is incorrect as the assessee was required to file e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed. As per the AIR and CIB information base, it is also seen that the assessee has deposited a total cash

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

11, 2003. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that these are not the fit cases for initiation of the reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income

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

11, 2003. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that these are not the fit cases for initiation of the reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income

ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings, inadvertently allowed deduction of Rs.180.00 lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act against the above said income of Rs.240.26 lakhs and the same has resulted in net addition of Rs.60.26 lakhs only, asagainst the proposed addition of Rs.91.65 lakhs u/s 11(3) of the Act, i.e., deduction to the extent of Rs.31.40 lakhs (being the shortfall between proposed

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

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

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.

11 of 78 Assessing Officer. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings u/s 147 Explanation 3 to Sec. 147 is very clear on this issue. But, where an assessment u/s 143(3) or 147 has already been made for the relevant assessment year, action u/s 147 is permissible only in cases where there is failure on the part

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.

11 of 78 Assessing Officer. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings u/s 147 Explanation 3 to Sec. 147 is very clear on this issue. But, where an assessment u/s 143(3) or 147 has already been made for the relevant assessment year, action u/s 147 is permissible only in cases where there is failure on the part

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11 of 23 once the return is filed, it is open to the Assessing Officer either to accept the same or to require further investigation. If he accepts the return of escaped income as it is, then, there would be no necessity of issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Act. However, if the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11 of 23 once the return is filed, it is open to the Assessing Officer either to accept the same or to require further investigation. If he accepts the return of escaped income as it is, then, there would be no necessity of issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Act. However, if the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 143(2) of the Act.\"\n18. As already noticed, the decision of this Court in Vision Inc. (supra) proceeded\non a different set of facts. In that case, there was a clear finding of the Court that\nservice of the notice had been effected on the Assessee under Section 143 (2) of\nthe Act. As already further noticed

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

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

2. Remarks (i):- 2.1 A Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11-2016 was issued (placed at page 8 of the Paper Book dtd: 11-01-2021), prior to the date of obtaining the approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23-03-2017. Therefore the Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11- 2016 issued without approval

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

2. Remarks (i):- 2.1 A Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11-2016 was issued (placed at page 8 of the Paper Book dtd: 11-01-2021), prior to the date of obtaining the approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23-03-2017. Therefore the Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11- 2016 issued without approval

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

2. Remarks (i):- 2.1 A Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11-2016 was issued (placed at page 8 of the Paper Book dtd: 11-01-2021), prior to the date of obtaining the approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23-03-2017. Therefore the Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11- 2016 issued without approval

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

2. Remarks (i):- 2.1 A Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11-2016 was issued (placed at page 8 of the Paper Book dtd: 11-01-2021), prior to the date of obtaining the approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23-03-2017. Therefore the Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11- 2016 issued without approval

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

2. Remarks (i):- 2.1 A Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11-2016 was issued (placed at page 8 of the Paper Book dtd: 11-01-2021), prior to the date of obtaining the approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23-03-2017. Therefore the Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 21-11- 2016 issued without approval

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

2 to Section 263 of the Act for passing order under Section 263 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax failed to consider the entire replies dated 26.03.2024 in response to the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and failed to adjudicate all the issues