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

15. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the re-assessment u/s. 147 may be annulled, that the addition of Rs. 7,31,845/- may be deleted and that the interest of Rs. 53,222/- levied u/s. 234D may be cancelled.” 2. For these assessment years, the assessee’s income mostly consists of salary, property income and income from other sources

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

15. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the re-assessment u/s. 147 may be annulled, that the addition of Rs. 7,31,845/- may be deleted and that the interest of Rs. 53,222/- levied u/s. 234D may be cancelled.” 2. For these assessment years, the assessee’s income mostly consists of salary, property income and income from other sources

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

15 of 77\n06. In our view the scope of Section 153C and 148 are clear from the bare reading of\nthe two provisions insomuch as Section 153C it starts with 'Notwithstanding nothing\ncontaining in Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153'. Thus if there is any contradiction\nbetween Sections 153C and 148, in that eventuality, Section 148 shall

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

147 are did not exist and therefore issue of notice u/s 148 was unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded by the Appellant are only reason for suspicion and not reasons to believe and accordingly the reassessment proceeding is not in accordance with

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

15 of 77\n06. In our view the scope of Section 153C and 148 are clear from the bare reading of\nthe two provisions insomuch as Section 153C it starts with 'Notwithstanding nothing\ncontaining in Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153'. Thus if there is any contradiction\nbetween Sections 153C and 148, in that eventuality, Section 148 shall

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

15` April, 2021 before issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act on or after 1st April, 2021. v. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has failed to consider that in the appellant's case the earlier re-assessment proceedings and order u/s 147 dated 31.03.2022 were set aside vide Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04.05.2022 in the case

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

15 of 77\n\n06. In our view the scope of Section 153C and 148 are clear from the bare reading of\nthe two provisions insomuch as Section 153C it starts with 'Notwithstanding nothing\ncontaining in Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153'. Thus if there is any contradiction\nbetween Sections 153C and 148, in that eventuality, Section

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

15 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\n06. In our view the scope of Section 153C and 148 are clear from the bare reading of\nthe two provisions insomuch as Section 153C it starts with 'Notwithstanding nothing\ncontaining in Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153'. Thus if there is any contradiction\nbetween Sections 153C

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

15 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\n06. In our view the scope of Section 153C and 148 are clear from the bare reading of\nthe two provisions insomuch as Section 153C it starts with 'Notwithstanding nothing\ncontaining in Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153'. Thus if there is any contradiction\nbetween Sections 153C

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 148, after formation of belief that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. Therefore he confirmed the reopening of assessment. 8. The assessee also challenged before the CIT(Appeals) that assessment should have been completed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In this case assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 153C which

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.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

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.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

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

15. Parliament, when it enacted the Explanation (3) to section 147 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 clearly had before it both the lines of precedent on the subject. The precedent dealt with two separate questions. When it effected the amendment by bringing in Explanation 3 to section 147, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded

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

15 of 64 15.11.2014 There was a Notification through which by an order u/s. 127 of the Act, CIT-4, Bangalore changed jurisdiction of the assessee from Circle 4(1)(2) to Circle 1(2)(1) in view of administrative requirements. Thus ACIT Circle 1(2)(1) assumed jurisdiction. 9.12.2014 Notice u/s. 148 was issued by ACIT Circle

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

15 of 64 15.11.2014 There was a Notification through which by an order u/s. 127 of the Act, CIT-4, Bangalore changed jurisdiction of the assessee from Circle 4(1)(2) to Circle 1(2)(1) in view of administrative requirements. Thus ACIT Circle 1(2)(1) assumed jurisdiction. 9.12.2014 Notice u/s. 148 was issued by ACIT Circle

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

147, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment or reassessment, or recomputation, as the case may be. The word "assess" refers to a situation where the assessment was not made in the normal manner while the word "reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment is already made, but it is sought to be reassessed on the basis of this

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

u/s. 147 of the Act as against 153C since the Ld.AO reopened the assessment based on materials seized during a search. Before we proceed with the analysing applicability of section 148 vis-à-vis 153C it is necessary to extract the relevant context. "Assessment of income of any other person. - 153C. [(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147

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

u/s. 148 was issued. The Ld.AR submitted that, the notice issued is therefore bad in law, as, it is not based on any fresh information. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Others reported in 259 ITR 19. 6. He also placed reliance on the decision

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