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

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

2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 1-4-2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31-3-2021 and 27-4-2021 (respectively) are concerned, we declare that the said Explanations must be read, as applicable to reassessment proceedings as may have

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

145, para 8. Also, Pune ITAT in Kishore assessment order read with the Digambar Patil vs ITO – page 157-176 of corrigendum case law compilation) - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRUST CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BALDWIN BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE

147 of the Act, without issuance of the mandatory notice u/s.143[2] of the Act. The relevant grounds of appeal raised before the learned CIT[A] is reproduced hereunder for the sake of immediate reference: “1. The assessments are ab initio void being violative of the mandatory provisions of section 143[2]." Page 8 of 19 He submitted that

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

SHRI. M.RAMASWAMY REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

145 to 149/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 2. CIT(A) failed to notice that Assessment can be made u/s. 144 only if there is no compliance u/s.143(3) .When Assessing officer intends do assessment it is only u/s.143(3) and as such notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory as required u/s.143(2)(ii). As CIT(A) has held notice u/s.143(2

M. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

145 to 149/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 2. CIT(A) failed to notice that Assessment can be made u/s. 144 only if there is no compliance u/s.143(3) .When Assessing officer intends do assessment it is only u/s.143(3) and as such notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory as required u/s.143(2)(ii). As CIT(A) has held notice u/s.143(2

M. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

145 to 149/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 2. CIT(A) failed to notice that Assessment can be made u/s. 144 only if there is no compliance u/s.143(3) .When Assessing officer intends do assessment it is only u/s.143(3) and as such notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory as required u/s.143(2)(ii). As CIT(A) has held notice u/s.143(2

M. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

145 to 149/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 2. CIT(A) failed to notice that Assessment can be made u/s. 144 only if there is no compliance u/s.143(3) .When Assessing officer intends do assessment it is only u/s.143(3) and as such notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory as required u/s.143(2)(ii). As CIT(A) has held notice u/s.143(2

SHRI. M.RAMASWAMY REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

145 to 149/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 2. CIT(A) failed to notice that Assessment can be made u/s. 144 only if there is no compliance u/s.143(3) .When Assessing officer intends do assessment it is only u/s.143(3) and as such notice u/s.143(2) is mandatory as required u/s.143(2)(ii). As CIT(A) has held notice u/s.143(2

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

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