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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

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

5. The ld. DR of revenue has also filed written submissions which are also reproduced hereinbelow. “1. As to the Additional Ground of Appeal : that no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued within the time allowed under the Page 24 of 37 proviso to section 143C2) of the Act, and as such the order passed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment order cannot be condoned. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of framing of a valid assessment, issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be dispensed with. Thus from the aforesaid discussions, we come to the conclusion that for the AO to take recourse to section

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment order cannot be condoned. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of framing of a valid assessment, issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be dispensed with. Thus from the aforesaid discussions, we come to the conclusion that for the AO to take recourse to section

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.

5 of 78 Personality Ltd., Any payment made by a company to a shareholder or concern in which he has substantial interest, is also covered by clause (e) of sub-sec.(22) of section 2. The existence of pre-conditions for invoking the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) to tax as deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder

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.

5 of 78 Personality Ltd., Any payment made by a company to a shareholder or concern in which he has substantial interest, is also covered by clause (e) of sub-sec.(22) of section 2. The existence of pre-conditions for invoking the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) to tax as deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder

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

147 of the Act for the initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. The impugned assessment year is 2002-03. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act had ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 40 been issued on 24.03.2014. Section 149 which deals with time-limit for issuing notice, prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2012, read

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 of the Act for the initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. The impugned assessment year is 2002-03. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act had ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 40 been issued on 24.03.2014. Section 149 which deals with time-limit for issuing notice, prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2012, read

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

5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra) the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:— "3. The Appellate Tribunal

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

5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra) the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:— "3. The Appellate Tribunal

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

5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra) the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:— "3. The Appellate Tribunal

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

5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra) the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:— "3. The Appellate Tribunal

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

5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case (supra) the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:— "3. The Appellate Tribunal

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

2 to Section 263 of the Act for passing order under Section 263 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax failed to consider the entire replies dated 26.03.2024 in response to the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and failed to adjudicate all the issues

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

5. The Ld. A.R. submitted with regard to ground Nos.2 to 6 as follows:- 5.1 Ground No. 2: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is not in accordance with law as the Assessing officer has proposed to reassess, whereas there has never been an assessment originally

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

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

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where