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

section 147, it is clear that the AO must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, it cannot be said that if there is any investment or bank account it is sufficient to believe that income to that extent escaped assessment because there may be so many sources for making such investment

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

section 147, it is clear that the AO must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, it cannot be said that if there is any investment or bank account it is sufficient to believe that income to that extent escaped assessment because there may be so many sources for making such investment

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

57 |\n| 56 |\n| 81 |\n| 20 |\n| 46 |\n| 19 |\n| 63 |\n| Total;\n\n| "Sale price” as per page\nNo.13 to 16 of seized\nmaterial No. A2/DJPL/4

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

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 escaped assessment proceedings under section 147 has been dismissed. [CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (Statutes) 27] 49. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in ICICI Home Finance

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.

u/s 148 of the Act, the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per this section 147 of the Act if the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could reopen the assessment. The term “has reason to believe” is wider enough to cover various circumstances

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.

u/s 148 of the Act, the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per this section 147 of the Act if the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could reopen the assessment. The term “has reason to believe” is wider enough to cover various circumstances

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

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. We have gone through the reasons recorded for these two assessment years which are as follows:- “Assessment Year 2006-2007: "Based on the information received under the DTAA from

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

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. We have gone through the reasons recorded for these two assessment years which are as follows:- “Assessment Year 2006-2007: "Based on the information received under the DTAA from

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

57. Further, he stated that the same amount has been claimed has deduction under income from other sources. However, the assessee’s claim was not accepted and the AO disallowed the expenses and brought it to tax. 2. Thus the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the AO determining total income of Rs.2,77,88,730 granting

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

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

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

147 is to be read to include the act of reassessing additional issues (not included in the original notice). 3. Deductibility of sales tax paid on sale of PC division 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the learned AO's action of treating the sales tax Page 3 of 19 paid