DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS) vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 325 wherein it is held that a period of four years from the end of the relevant financial year would be reasonable period for initiating action u/s. 201 of the Act, a decision during the period when no time limit was prescribed under the Act, and under the circumstances, no action could

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

TDS. 1.2. The Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 12.12.2017. During the course of survey, various incriminating material including books of accounts and documents were found and impounded. Subsequently, the case was selected for reassessment proceedings u/s 147

SRINIVAS RUDRAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not arise. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the fact and law. Hence, this Honourable Bench

SRINIVAS RUDRAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not arise. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the fact and law. Hence, this Honourable Bench

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment 2,90,654/- proceedings were initiated by an Income Tax (excluding Authority who had no jurisdiction over the interest) Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to ground no 2 and assuming without admitting that the proceedings were validly initiated, the order of Same as above the Ld. AO and the order of the Ld DRP under whose directions the impugned assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

147 B. Both Sections 153A and 153C embody non-obstante clauses and are in express terms ordained to override Sections 139, 147 to 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to ten AYs' consequent

M/S AUTOLIV INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

147 of the Act. The assessee has filed appeal numbered as ITA 594/B/2018 challenging the order so passed by Ld CIT(A). 4. We shall first take up the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/18 relating to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. As noticed earlier, the Ld CIT(A) rejected the appeal in limine refusing

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS is wilful of act of the assessee in order to reduce its taxable income. In light of the same undersigned has reason to believe that an amount to tune of Rs. Rs. 49,17,872 /- has escaped assessment within meaning of section 147 of Income-tax Act.” 20. According to the provisions of section 147

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

u/s. 147 is held to be valid and this grounds of appeal is dismissed.” 10. Before the Tribunal, the learned DR had justified reopening of assessment by filing written submissions. The content of the same reads as follows: “Arguments against the legal ground raised by the Appellant (i) With regard to the above ground, it is submitted that

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

147\n35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to\nany steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to\nthe respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been\nprepared in a mechanical format and it does not provide any details about the\nincriminating material. Therefore, a failure