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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 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

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

234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 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

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

234 ITR 170 (Del) 4. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 ITR 68 (Guj) 5. CWT Vs.Shivaram Singh 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

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 8. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act. 6 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 3.5 The contentions of the assessee as regard to the legal issue on re-opening of assessment are as under: The re-opening of assessment is bad in law since the i. said re-opening is not permissible as per the first and second proviso to section

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, #T-4, 8Th Main Road, 13Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Galaxy Eternity Apartments, Vs. Ward – 1 [3] [4], Malleshwaram, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Agcpg0607P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019

reassessment proceedings in search cases where incriminating material is found, the same has to be taken up under the provisions of 153A not u/s 147 of the Act. (e) No speaking order disposing off the objections to Reasons Recorded has been passed; (f) The Reasons to Reopen are merely Reasons to Suspect Et not Reasons to Believe on the facts

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' did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the assessment requires to be annulled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 2, the Order of assessment

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 147 of the Act are not valid for taking up the case for reassessment. Without prejudice to the merits of the case, it was submitted that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is without authority of law and jurisdiction. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:- SI.No. Particulars Reopening of Assessment without any new material

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows