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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision relied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision relied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. SRINIVAS RAO HOSKOTE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A Nos.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -2(3)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Shri. Srinivas Rao Hoskote, No.4/7, 3Rd Floor, Sidda Enclave Nehrunagar, 1St Main Road, Seshadripuram Bengaluru 560 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaeph8477J Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Heard On : 31.01.2018 Pronounced On : 21.02.2018 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar:

u/s 147 resorted to by the AO are bad in law and the assessment order passed is therefore cancelled as being void abinitio On account of the above said findings given by the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 04. At the outset the Ld. DR brought to our notice the decision passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

249 (Delhi), this Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

249 (Delhi), this Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2021. The assessee filed its objection on 30.11.2021 which was disposed on 17.1.2022. Assessee was asked to show cause the above. ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 18 6. The assessee submitted that liability to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act arises

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2021. The assessee filed its objection on 30.11.2021 which was disposed on 17.1.2022. Assessee was asked to show cause the above. ITA Nos.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 18 6. The assessee submitted that liability to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act arises

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 of the Act. The AO had also considered the return filed u/s 139 of the Act while concluding the Assessment proceedings. Further, we are of the view that once the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke