M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section 12A

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

12A and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) also and therefore, entire income of the assessee is taxable. These facts show that both notices u/s 148 were issued for the same reason in the present case whereas in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra

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

12A and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) also and therefore, entire income of the assessee is taxable. These facts show that both notices u/s 148 were issued for the same reason in the present case whereas in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra

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

12A and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) also and therefore, entire income of the assessee is taxable. These facts show that both notices u/s 148 were issued for the same reason in the present case whereas in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra

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

12A and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) also and therefore, entire income of the assessee is taxable. These facts show that both notices u/s 148 were issued for the same reason in the present case whereas in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra

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

12A and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) also and therefore, entire income of the assessee is taxable. These facts show that both notices u/s 148 were issued for the same reason in the present case whereas in the case of P. Dayananda Pai Vs. ACIT (Supra

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

147 shall be taken by the Assessing Officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year: Provided also that provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

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

147 of the Act.' 3.10 The ld. CIT(A) has considered the Para 2.1 of CBDT Circular No.11/2008, dated 19.12.2008 wherein states as under: “2.1 The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

147 are applicable to facts of this\ncase and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case\nwhere income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more\nthan four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under\nconsideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been\nobtained separately from Pr Commissioner

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

147 are applicable to facts of this\ncase and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case\nwhere income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more\nthan four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under\nconsideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been\nobtained separately from Pr Commissioner

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] 34[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] 34[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall