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

section 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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.

2) of the Act for making a scrutiny by the time he received a letter dated 26/6/2010 from the ACIT, C-11(4). Further, the matter cannot be considered u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of revenue, the AO has resorted to the possible action u/s 147 of the Act in accordance with the provisions

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.

2) of the Act for making a scrutiny by the time he received a letter dated 26/6/2010 from the ACIT, C-11(4). Further, the matter cannot be considered u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of revenue, the AO has resorted to the possible action u/s 147 of the Act in accordance with the provisions

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 144 of the Act was completely uncalled for. We are of the considered opinion that where the return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and no notices has been validly issued by the AO u/s 143(2) of the Act, the subsequent assessment proceedings u/s 147 stand vitiated and ITA Nos.823

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 144 of the Act was completely uncalled for. We are of the considered opinion that where the return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and no notices has been validly issued by the AO u/s 143(2) of the Act, the subsequent assessment proceedings u/s 147 stand vitiated and ITA Nos.823

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

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

section 144 of the Act was completely uncalled\nfor. We are of the considered opinion that where the return of\nincome has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and\nno notices has been validly issued by the AO u/s 143(2) of the Act,\nthe subsequent assessment proceedings u/s 147 stand vitiated and\nthe order

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purpose of that section (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) if the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purpose of that section (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) if the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the act, dated 29/03/2022, Rs.41,10,000/- deposited into Saraswath Bank was added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the act. 4.2. The Ld.PCIT initiated 263 proceedings against the order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the act for lack of enquiry regarding cash deposited in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. As the notice u/s

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

2 of the notice u/s 148 is reproduced below for ease of reference: Whereas I have reason to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2009-10 has escaped Assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess / reassess

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

147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets