SHRI B R RAMARAJU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/6467/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01019592201510 September 2015Bench: RAM MOHAN REDDY5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no exception to the reasons, findings, and conclusions of the tax authorities. The petitioners failed to provide relevant material constituting legal evidence for their claimed expenditures.

What were the facts?

The petitioners conveyed immovable properties and claimed expenditures for brokerage, eviction charges, and improvements. These claims were disallowed by the Joint Commissioner and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner in revision due to a lack of supporting legal evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the claimed expenditures for brokerage, eviction charges, and improvements were supported by sufficient legal evidence to warrant disallowance by the tax authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6467 OF 2015 (T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.6470 & 26074 OF 2015 (T-IT) WRIT PETITION NO.6469 OF 2015 (T-IT)

IN W.P.NO.6467/2015

BETWEEN:

SHRI B.R RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI B.C.RAJASHEKAR, NO.40/1,KHAZI STREET, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CENTRAL RANGE, BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.30.11.2011 PASSED U/S.153C R.W.S.143[3] OF THE ACT BY THE R-2 [ANNEX-A] AND ETC.

IN W.P.NOS.6470 & 26074/2015

BETWEEN:

SMT. KAMALA RAJSHEKAR (DECD), REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEIR, SRI B R ANJAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE B C RAJASHEKAR, NO.71,KHAZI STREET, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL RANGE, BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.11.2011 PASSED U/S 153 R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE R-1(ANNX-A) AND ETC.

IN W.P.NO.6469/2015

BETWEEN:

SHRI B.R ANJAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI LATE B C RAJASHEKAR, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL RANGE, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.11.2011 PASSED U/S 153 R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE R-2(ANNX-A) AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.

2.

Petitioners having conveyed certain immovable properties for a valuable consideration during the assessment year 2009-2010, are said to have filed returns declaring a certain total income, claiming expenditure towards brokerage, eviction charges and cost of improvements which when disallowed, by order dated 30.11.2011, Annexure-A, of the Joint Commissioner of the Income Tax (OSD), Central Range, Bangalore, preferred a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whence, the Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (Central), Bangalore, having noticed lack of relevant material

constituting substantial legal evidence of the claims of brokerage, eviction charge and cost of improvements, declined to interfere with the order under revision and by order dated 27.3.2014, rejected the petitions. Hence these petitions.

3.

Learned counsel is unable to point out to relevant material constituting legal evidence over the claim of expenditure incurred by the petitioners and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusion arrived at by the authorities in the orders impugned calling for interference. Petitions rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →