NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

144B of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, assessee had contended that reopening of assessment is bad in law since there has been full and true disclosure by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was contended that since the reassessment notice has been issued beyond four years from

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

144B without appreciating that the Appellant\ndoes not belong to the class of persons that are notified by the Board and in whose case\nassessment shall be done in a faceless manner..\n7.\n7.1.\n7.2.\n7.3.\n7.4.\nGROUNDS RELATING TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION\n10(38):\nThe learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the conclusion

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B read with section 147 is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 18 3. Grounds relating to principles of natural justice 3.1. The CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not providing any cogent reasons in its order under section 250 of the Act, for treating the payments to foreign vendors

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B read with section 147 is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 18 3. Grounds relating to principles of natural justice 3.1. The CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not providing any cogent reasons in its order under section 250 of the Act, for treating the payments to foreign vendors

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

144B without appreciating that the Appellant\ndoes not belong to the class of persons that are notified by the Board and in whose case\nassessment shall be done in a faceless manner..\n7. GROUNDS RELATING TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION\n10(38):\n7. 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the conclusion of the learned

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12.1.2024, the legal heir of the assessee Smt. Sarojamma preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. However, due to the technical issues on the Income Tax Portal, as she was unable to add her name as legal heir/authorized

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment order passed by the AO and directed to complete the proceedings with certain directions vide order dated 23.03.2024. In the case on hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee has strongly submitted that order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 is non-est since the notice u/s

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment under Section 153A of the Act. Pune Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akhil Ghulamali Somji Vs. ITO (supra) has held in paras 13 & 14 as under : “ 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Ratnabai N.K. Dubhash (Mrs.) (Supra), the difference between cancellation and amendment of assessment in view of the provisions of Sections 143, 144B

MAHENDRA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated Page 2 of 13 23.03.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and therefore it was set aside directing the Ld. AO to make a fresh assessment. 2. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal challenging the validity as well as merits

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

reassessment, referred to in\nclause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has\nbeen made accepting the application.”\n5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider\nsection 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68\nfiled by the Assessee Company on 06/10/2022

HOLY SPIRIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY CONVENT OF HOLY SPIRIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law as the entire re-assessment proceedings are on account of a mere change of opinion which is impermissible in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act has several material defects

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

144B of the Act reassessing the income of the assessee to the extent of above mentioned 3 items making a total addition of Rs.5,03,98,413/-. 3.4 Aggrieved by the reassessment completed u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.3.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC questioning the legal validity of the reassessment order dated

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.2.2023 by making disallowance of Rs.91,47,331/- claimed deduction as cost of improvement. On going through the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings on or before the completion of assessment proceedings on the ground of under reporting of income in consequence of mis reporting. Further, on going through the show

BHARATH BAFNA ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

147 and 144B of the Act dated 12.3.2022 which was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue by revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT dated 19.3.2024 and the reassessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 10.3.2025. 9. We find that even

SHRI. KRISHNA ENTERPRISIS ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.04.2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer was dismissed. 5. The counsel for the Assessee stated that the Appeal for Assessment Year 2016–17 and 2017–18 may be taken as the lead appeal. In this case he challenges the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range

SHRI. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.04.2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer was dismissed. 5. The counsel for the Assessee stated that the Appeal for Assessment Year 2016–17 and 2017–18 may be taken as the lead appeal. In this case he challenges the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range

MR. RIYAZ AHMED ,CHIKAMAGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKMAGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B as the appellant was relied for all the notices u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice dated 21.03.2022, and also filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148. But the Assessing Officer without issuing the 143(2) notice to assume the jurisdiction to reassess the income after the return

NANDI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER APPEAL, VIJAYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 31.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that the assessee had successfully discharged the statutory onus cast upon it in terms of provisions