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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 read with section 144 of the Act. 26.1 This was not done. 27. Therefore, we are of the view that order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.” 11.10 In the case of PCIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd Reported in (2018) 409 ITR 132, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 read with section 144 of the Act. 26.1 This was not done. 27. Therefore, we are of the view that order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.” 11.10 In the case of PCIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd Reported in (2018) 409 ITR 132, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under

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

section 263 of the Act and not u/s. 147 of the Act and therefore does not apply. 15. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v. PCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 240 (Gujarat) which was also u/s. 263 of the Act and similar is the case in 156

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

section 263 of the Act and not u/s. 147 of the Act and therefore does not apply. 15. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v. PCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 240 (Gujarat) which was also u/s. 263 of the Act and similar is the case in 156

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

147 of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. I, thus, in terms of above discussion, quash the assessment framed by ITO Ward-1, Chikamagaluru u/s 144 of the Act dated 24.12.2018. 7.5 Further, the ld. D.R. strongly placed reliance on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer

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

147 of the Act whereas the sole reason for reopening assessment under sections 147/148 of the Act was on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata regarding accommodation entries received by the assessee on 27.02.2024 observing as under: Page 2 of 14 2. Against the reassessment order passed by the AO dated 30.03.2022, Pr. CIT issued show

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

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore there being no assessment under section 143(1 )(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore there being no assessment under section 143(1 )(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore there being no assessment under section 143(1 )(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

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

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore there being no assessment under section 143(1 )(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore there being no assessment under section 143(1 )(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 143(2) of the Act." 18. As already noticed, the decision of this Court in Vision Inc. (supra) proceeded on a different set of facts. In that case, there was a clear finding of the Court that service of the notice had been effected on the Assessee under Section 143 (2) of the Act. As already further noticed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.” 5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider section 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68 filed by the Assessee Company on 06/10/2022

SHRI ANAND NADIG ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in appeal, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that any books of account, or documents seized or requisitioned 'belong to' or belongs

SHRI ANAND NADIG ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in appeal, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that any books of account, or documents seized or requisitioned 'belong to' or belongs

SHRI ANAND NADIG ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in appeal, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that any books of account, or documents seized or requisitioned 'belong to' or belongs