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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 143(3) of the Act, especially when the disallowance was not re-iterated by the AO) in the draft assessment order. 33.1 In the present case, the assessee declared a total income of ₹ 58,27,68

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

3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed u/s 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

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

3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed u/s 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

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

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction

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

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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

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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

143(3) for AY 2021-22, whereas for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21,\nassessments were framed under section 153A of the Act. This clearly\ndemonstrates that the AO also considered that the search was\nconducted during FY 2020-21, which is in full agreement with the\nstatutory interpretation given under the sixth proviso to section 153B

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 143(3) would also fail. Therefore, we are of the considered and firm view that the proper and correct interpretation of the Notification ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 68

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

143(3) for AY 2021-22, whereas for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21,\nassessments were framed under section 153A of the Act. This clearly\ndemonstrates that the AO also considered that the search was\nconducted during FY 2020-21, which is in full agreement with the\nstatutory interpretation given under the sixth proviso to section 153B

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

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act which are prospective in nature

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

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act which are prospective in nature

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

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act which are prospective in nature