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

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

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 as above

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

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 as above

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

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 as above

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

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 as above

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

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 as above

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.

reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons to believe were supplied\nand additional information were sought by the AO. The Assessee\ncomplied with the notices issued

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.

reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons to believe were supplied\nand additional information were sought by the AO. The Assessee\ncomplied with the notices issued

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

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 is a company engaged

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

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 by the assessee

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