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

reassessment proceedings should be initiated in the pre-amended section. the conditions precedent for initiation of action u/s. 147(a) or 147(b) of the pre-amended situation, is high-lighted above. The amended provisions are contextually different and the cumulative conditions spelt out in Clause (a) or (b) of Section 147 prior to its amendment, are not present

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

234A, section\n234B and section 234C.\nThe Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and\nwithout prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit,\nsubstitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of\nhearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234A and 234B of the Act. Total tax effect Rs.12,51,125/- 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a private limited company came into existence on 18/11/2011 and carrying on the business of construction of apartments/residential houses. The assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 28/09/2015 declaring

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234A and 234B of the Act. Total tax effect Rs.12,51,125/- 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a private limited company came into existence on 18/11/2011 and carrying on the business of construction of apartments/residential houses. The assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 28/09/2015 declaring

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

234A, section\n234B and section 234C.\nThe Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and\nwithout prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit,\nsubstitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of\nhearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

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

u/s 144 r/w 147 are null & void.\n12.\nAccordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 24th Nov, 2025\nSd/-\n(Waseem Ahmed)\nAccountant Member\nBangalore,\nDated 24th Nov, 2025.\nVG/SPS\nSd/-\n(Keshav Dubey)\nJudicial Member\nCopy to:\n1. The Applicant

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 is bad in law since the mandatory conditions as envisaged in the Act to assume jurisdiction under section 148 did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. f. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the order of assessment

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The ld. AR of assessee submitted synopsis and he submitted that in respect of legal issue raised by the assessee as per ground nos. 2 and 3, Para nos. 2 to 2.12 of the synopsis are relevant and this issue raised

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently the order of reassessment requires to be cancelled in entirety. 6. The order of reassessment is bad in law and void ab inibo since the learned Assessing Officer failed to take mandatory sanction of the competent authority and if obtained, was not in accordance

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently the order of reassessment requires to be cancelled in entirety. 6. The order of reassessment is bad in law and void ab inibo since the learned Assessing Officer failed to take mandatory sanction of the competent authority and if obtained, was not in accordance

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently the order of reassessment requires to be cancelled in entirety. 6. The order of reassessment is bad in law and void ab inibo since the learned Assessing Officer failed to take mandatory sanction of the competent authority and if obtained, was not in accordance

DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED ,BIDAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently the order of reassessment requires to be cancelled in entirety. 6. The order of reassessment is bad in law and void ab inibo since the learned Assessing Officer failed to take mandatory sanction of the competent authority and if obtained, was not in accordance

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

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

234A and 234B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

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

234A and 234B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

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

234A and 234B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete