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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1 54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B by Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs. 87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section 234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1 54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B by Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs. 87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section 234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1 54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B by Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs. 87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section 234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1 54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B by Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs. 87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section 234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

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

234B and 234C also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without amounting to Rs.1,02,83,852 and appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit Rs.5,64,490 subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO respectively. nor by the Ld. CIT(A). Same

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

234B and 234C also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without amounting to Rs.1,02,83,852 and appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit Rs.5,64,490 subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO respectively. nor by the Ld. CIT(A). Same

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

234B and 234C also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without amounting to Rs.1,02,83,852 and appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit Rs.5,64,490 subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO respectively. nor by the Ld. CIT(A). Same

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

234B and 234C also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without amounting to Rs.1,02,83,852 and appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit Rs.5,64,490 subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO respectively. nor by the Ld. CIT(A). Same

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

234B and 234C also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without amounting to Rs.1,02,83,852 and appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit Rs.5,64,490 subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO respectively. nor by the Ld. CIT(A). Same

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

reassessment order after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2011-12, though there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is contrary to first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Ground relating to Corporate Tax 4. The learned

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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 total income

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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 total income

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

234B and Section 234C of the Act. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified in law. 10.Appellant craves leave to add, amend, substitute, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

147 of the Act being absent, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled. 7. That the authorities below erred in framing order under section 144 of the Act without following the prescribed procedure under law. 8. That the order u/s 144 r.w.s.147

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

147 of the Act being absent, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled. 7. That the authorities below erred in framing order under section 144 of the Act without following the prescribed procedure under law. 8. That the order u/s 144 r.w.s.147