TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 07.02.2020 and other statutory notices were issued on different dates. On examination of the documents assessee has made cash payment of more than Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure incurred which are debited in the P & L A/c which is in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act for both

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 shall apply as they apply for the purpose of that section (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) if the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 shall apply as they apply for the purpose of that section (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) if the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154(Bom) = (2010-TIOL-146-HC-MUM- IT) after considering the decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 10 of the Act, exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax, shall furnish the return of income. As seen from th assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee not at all claimed the deduction u/s 10(23C) of the Act by showing that the assessee has filed the return u/s

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

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 7.6 The CIT(A), has rightly observed that Section 2(8) of the Act defines assessment to include Re-assessment". Moreover, the Act does not lay down separate & distinct

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 147 for the reopened case. The copy of CBDT instruction is attached as Annexure 3 to this paper book. Subsequently the Appellant was served notice under substituted section 148A of the Act and reassessment

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

147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154(Bom) = (2010-TIOL-146-HC-MUM- IT) after considering the decision

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

147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154(Bom) = (2010-TIOL-146-HC-MUM- IT) after considering the decision

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

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

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

147 for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1\n54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B\nby Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section\n234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

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

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

147 for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1\n54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B\nby Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section\n234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the act, dated 29/03/2022, Rs.41,10,000/- deposited into Saraswath Bank was added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the act. 4.2. The Ld.PCIT initiated 263 proceedings against the order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the act for lack of enquiry regarding cash deposited in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. As the notice u/s

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

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

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

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

147 for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1\n54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B\nby Rs.1,68,14,539/ and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section\n234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order

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

147 for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 on 28.06.2019, the AO passed a rectification order u/s. 1\n54 on 29.07.2021, for the same AY, enhancing interest u./s 234B\nby Rs.1,68,14,539/and charged interest u/s 234D of Rs.\n87,89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section\n234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order