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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45,025/- Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed the order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed below:- AY Order Date of Order Income offered in Total Additions Made Income Assessed in order passed return u/s. 139/148 passed by AO u/s. 2014-15 144 30.08.2019 Rs.(-) 43,32,947/- Rs.15

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45,025/- Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed the order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed below:- AY Order Date of Order Income offered in Total Additions Made Income Assessed in order passed return u/s. 139/148 passed by AO u/s. 2014-15 144 30.08.2019 Rs.(-) 43,32,947/- Rs.15

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

45 days for filing such return? [B] Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in not holding that the delayed return was thus to be treated as non- est return, as held by the Patna Bench of the 1TAT in the case of Chand Bihari Agarwal v/s ACTT, IT (SS) A No.5/ PAT/2010, and that that ratio

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

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

45,025/-\nThus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed\nthe order 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the relevant AYs as detailed\nbelow:-\nAY\nOrder\npassed\nu/s.\nDate of Order\nIncome offered in\nreturn u/s.139/148\nTotal Additions Made\nIncome Assessed in order\npassed by AO\n2014-15\n144\n30.08.2019\nRs.(-) 43,32,947/-\nRs.15

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

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

2) for reopening the earlier assessment made under section 143(1). All that has been excluded is that the assessee, in whose case the return was first processed under section 143(1), cannot challenge the notice of reopening on the ground that it is prompted by a mere change of opinion. Only to this limited extent there is a disability

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

2) for reopening the earlier assessment made under section 143(1). All that has been excluded is that the assessee, in whose case the return was first processed under section 143(1), cannot challenge the notice of reopening on the ground that it is prompted by a mere change of opinion. Only to this limited extent there is a disability

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

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently

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

45 of 58 circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could he assessed or reassessed. To Confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to 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

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

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

2) for reopening the earlier assessment made under section 143(1). All that has been excluded is that the assessee, in whose case the return was first processed under section 143(1), cannot challenge the notice of reopening on the ground that it is prompted by a mere change of opinion. Only to this limited extent there is a disability

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

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