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

147 of the Act, bars re-opening of the assessment since the conditions permitting the reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities

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

147 of the Act, bars re-opening of the assessment since the conditions permitting the reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities

M/S. UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

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

163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for warranty

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

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

163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for warranty

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

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

163 ITR 773 (Patna HC) 6. DCIT Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 81 TTJ 269 (Chandigarh ITAT) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals) and submitted that in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.08.2007 the Assessing Officer made addition only in respect of provision for warranty

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

u/s. 147 is held to be valid and this grounds of appeal is dismissed.” 10. Before the Tribunal, the learned DR had justified reopening of assessment by filing written submissions. The content of the same reads as follows: “Arguments against the legal ground raised by the Appellant (i) With regard to the above ground, it is submitted that

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. While section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of any proceeding already taken against the assessee “before his death”, Section 159(2)(b) of the Act specifically talks about any proceeding, which could have been taken against the deceased, if he had survived. Thus, it permits such a proceeding which could have

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

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

u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis for reopening or part of the reasons recorded, therefore during the course of reassessment proceedings any further addition is made by AO is also not sustainable. Our view

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

163, assess or 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 the section. The first proviso to s. 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation

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

163, assess or 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 the section. The first proviso to s. 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

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

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 10A on the amount of provisions written back. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment order as invalid for the reason that the facts alleged in the reasons recorded are incorrect.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee inadvertently did not specifically take the above mentioned grounds arising from the reassessment order, as such

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

163, assess or 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 the section. The first proviso to s. 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

163, assess or 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 the section. The first proviso to s. 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE 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

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

163, assess or 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 the section. The first proviso to s. 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines s. 147 is the formation

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

147 of the IT Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 05.06.2017 of the Act. Another notice u/s. 148 was issued on 11.12.2018 manually as the system generated notice u/s. 148 dated 05.06.2017 did not mention the name of the legal heir. 4. The assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by assessing officer, and accordingly, proposal

LM WIND POWER BLADES (INDAI) PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2000-01

reassessment. In Mintu Kalitas case (supra), it was held that in the absence of a proper service of notice u/s 148, the AO cannot make an assessment u/s 147 of the Act. It was further held that just because the assessee responds to notice issued u/s 142(1), it cannot be said that there is a response to notice u/s