M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,020/- and tax liability of Rs.14,08,015/- was paid and there was refund of Rs. 42,340/- . ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 22` 4.2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has sent communication under section 143(1

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,020/- and tax liability of Rs.14,08,015/- was paid and there was refund of Rs. 42,340/- . ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 22` 4.2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has sent communication under section 143(1

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

143(1) of the Act:- • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer

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

143(1) of the Act:- • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer

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

143(3) or 144 had been made before. • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 40. It is to be noted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

143(2) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

143(2) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The same refers to arithmetical errors or certain disallowances which need to be made or certain additions which need to be made to the declared income. It doesn't refer to any relief to be allowed to the assessee which the assessee has not claimed in its return of income. For this

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The same refers to arithmetical errors or certain disallowances which need to be made or certain additions which need to be made to the declared income. It doesn't refer to any relief to be allowed to the assessee which the assessee has not claimed in its return of income. For this

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the issuance of notice under Section 143(3) of the ncome Tax Act, 1961 within the prescribed time-limit for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory? And (2) Whether, on the facts

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the issuance of notice under Section 143(3) of the ncome Tax Act, 1961 within the prescribed time-limit for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory? And (2) Whether, on the facts

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

143(3) by itself being such a finding, based on the satisfaction or otherwise, of the Assessing Officer and no separate order finding on this count is envisaged as per the provisions of law. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance is made after examining all the issues and the AO has also relied upon the decision

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

143(3) by itself being such a finding, based on the satisfaction or otherwise, of the Assessing Officer and no separate order finding on this count is envisaged as per the provisions of law. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance is made after examining all the issues and the AO has also relied upon the decision

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

68,000/- Rs. 808,05,00,000/-\nIntangible asset- Trade name\nRs. 125,95,00,000/-\nIntangible asset- customer Rs. 30,060,000/-\nRs. 85,33,00,000/-\ncontacts\nGoodwill\nRs. 280,39,08,132/- Rs. 2016,21,78,480/-\nTotal\nRs. 412,05,36,132/- Rs. 3035,54,78,480/-\n21. On the above identified intangible assets, the assessee

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

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing\nthe business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same