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)

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2019 is invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued as per para ‘4’ of the CBDT circular, since it is not in conformity with the requirements mentioned in para ‘3’. Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld.AO in the said assessment order is also rendered to be invalid and deleted

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

3) of the Act for the\n Assessment Year 2016-17 on 13.12.2018, it was noticed that the assessee\nhas received cash credit of Rs.8.31 Crores from the entity M/s. Mangal\ntrading and clothing LLP during the relevant previous year and listed the\nentity as sundry creditors. However, on the basis of detailed enquiry carried\nout, the AO established that

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 13.12.2018, it was noticed that the assessee has received cash credit of Rs.8.31 Crores from the entity M/s. Mangal trading and clothing LLP during the relevant previous year and listed the entity as sundry creditors. However, on the basis of detailed enquiry carried out, the AO established that

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

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

144 of the Act. The AO has mentioned the section in para 5.5 of the assessment order. He mentioned that addition of Rs.1,25,89,399/- added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. However, while making final addition he has not mentioned that addition on account of unexplained cash deposit at Rs.1

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

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

3) dated 29.12.2017.\nb) Ignoring the brought forward loss claimed by the appellant.\n10. The Id. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act.\nTotal tax effect Rs.52,40,870/-\n3.\nThe assessee in ITA No.824/Bang/2025 for the AY 2016-17\nhas raised the following grounds of appeal:\n1. The orders of the lower authorities

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. The assessee

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

144. 3. As regards additional income of Rs. 1,14,20,100/-: 3.1. The Lower Authorities are not justified in assessing the additional income of Rs. 1,14,20,100/- declared by the Appellant in his return of income merely on the basis of statement recorded without any evidence collected in the course of the said survey. 3.2. The Lower

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

3,487,865,338 3.8 The AO passed a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act on 30.03.2023, determining the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 340,68,58,962 after incorporating the TP adjustments as above and making certain disallowances under section 14A and section

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRIP"), Bangalore under Section 144 C (5), dated 24 November 2015 on the following grounds: That

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

68 of the 1961 Act. The appellant/assessee adopted a three-pronged plea in support of the above contention; First, that assessment order refers to Section 145(2) of the 1961 Act. It should have mentioned Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act. For that, the appellant/assessee relies on the amendment of the 1961 Act which came into effect

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