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

reassessment proceedings based upon the opinion of the Assessing Officer of the lessor at Mumbai was “borrowed satisfaction” and was not sufficient reason to believe that income had ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 32 of 40 escaped assessment proceedings under section 147 has been dismissed. [CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (Statutes) 27] 44

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

u/s. 147 depends upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction.” & CO No.51/Bang/2019 Page 26 of 38 42. The Tribunal in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Radheshyam Mohanlal Maheshwari [2011] 12 ITR(TRIB.) 429 (AHD.) held

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 44

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 44

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 of the Act, bars re-opening of the assessment since the conditions permitting the reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 of the Act, bars re-opening of the assessment since the conditions permitting the reopening do not exist and the same is not the basis on which the assessment stands reopened. The Ld. AR placed reliance for this proposition on the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities

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

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

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

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

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

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

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

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

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

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

44,64,110 Less : 0.5% of average investment 26,01,368 Expense claimed under section 57 18,62,742 Amount restricted to the income under 13,76,320 the head Income From Other Sources Page 3 of 24 2.3 The amount of Rs. 13,76,320/- has been claimed as deduction to the extent of Income shown under the head

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, #T-4, 8Th Main Road, 13Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Galaxy Eternity Apartments, Vs. Ward – 1 [3] [4], Malleshwaram, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Agcpg0607P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019

reassessment proceedings in search cases where incriminating material is found, the same has to be taken up under the provisions of 153A not u/s 147 of the Act. (e) No speaking order disposing off the objections to Reasons Recorded has been passed; (f) The Reasons to Reopen are merely Reasons to Suspect Et not Reasons to Believe on the facts