CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

362 ITR 673Supreme Court of India2014#122 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears authority for?

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

528

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears · section 153C · satisfaction note · jurisdictional prerequisite · limitation period · seized material · assessment year · block period · search assessment · section 158BD

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 446223 Taxmann 115

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 144Section 115BBESection 292C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 158bcsection 144asection 144basatisfaction notesection 158bblock periodsection 158section 153c(1)documents seizedsection 292c

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

…ITA Nos.10 & 26/Bang/2020 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation of Income-tax No.82, Shakthi Bhavan Circle-4(1)(1) Race Course Road Vs. Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO : AAACK8032D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Income-tax Vs. Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma…

M/S Ambika Transport Co vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 188/JAB/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

…iple of interpretation of statutes, it is well-settled that where there is no ambiguity in law, the same is to be given effect, and on which the case law is legion, and reference, by way of example, is made to the decision in (CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the law is clear, as it indeed is in the instant case, no other rule of interpretation is required (Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC); CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC)). Not so doing would be to…

M/S Ambika Transport Co vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 187/JAB/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

…iple of interpretation of statutes, it is well-settled that where there is no ambiguity in law, the same is to be given effect, and on which the case law is legion, and reference, by way of example, is made to the decision in (CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the law is clear, as it indeed is in the instant case, no other rule of interpretation is required (Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC); CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC)). Not so doing would be to…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…s a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Hon’ble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incriminating in nature and prima facie represent undisclosed income. In this regard, we also find that in the order…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…s a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Hon’ble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incriminating in nature and prima facie represent undisclosed income. In this regard, we also find that in the order…

Sachin Pareek, Surat vs. DCIT (Centrel) Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1683/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Rajendra Jain is not incriminating having bearing on undisclosed income.  CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [84 taxmann.com 290] (SC) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh  CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 673 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Munisuvrat Corporation [ 115 taxmann.com 265 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 108 CCH 0019 ] (SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 419 ITR 132 ] (Guj. HC)  Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT [ 106 taxmann.com 137 ](Guj. HC)  CIT vs. Shardaben K. Modi [ 365 ITR 0169 ]( Guj. HC )  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain [ 4…

M/S. Sun Diam, Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1578/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Rajendra Jain is not incriminating having bearing on undisclosed income.  CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [84 taxmann.com 290] (SC) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh  CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 673 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Munisuvrat Corporation [ 115 taxmann.com 265 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 108 CCH 0019 ] (SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 419 ITR 132 ] (Guj. HC)  Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT [ 106 taxmann.com 137 ](Guj. HC)  CIT vs. Shardaben K. Modi [ 365 ITR 0169 ]( Guj. HC )  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain [ 4…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1367/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Rajendra Jain is not incriminating having bearing on undisclosed income.  CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [84 taxmann.com 290] (SC) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh  CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 673 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Munisuvrat Corporation [ 115 taxmann.com 265 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 108 CCH 0019 ] (SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 419 ITR 132 ] (Guj. HC)  Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT [ 106 taxmann.com 137 ](Guj. HC)  CIT vs. Shardaben K. Modi [ 365 ITR 0169 ]( Guj. HC )  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain [ 4…

M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1365/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Rajendra Jain is not incriminating having bearing on undisclosed income.  CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [84 taxmann.com 290] (SC) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh  CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 673 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Munisuvrat Corporation [ 115 taxmann.com 265 ](SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 108 CCH 0019 ] (SC)  PCIT vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel [ 419 ITR 132 ] (Guj. HC)  Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT [ 106 taxmann.com 137 ](Guj. HC)  CIT vs. Shardaben K. Modi [ 365 ITR 0169 ]( Guj. HC )  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain [ 4…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Fortune Vanijya Private Limited, Guwahati

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…1 I.T.A. No.21/Gau/2021 & CO No.1/Gau/2021 Fortune Vanijya Private Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’ble V.P (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No.21/Gau/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati Vs. Fortune Vanijya Private Limited S.J. Road, Athgaon, Guwahati-781001. [PAN:AABCF0295Q] Appellant Respondent CO No.1/Gau/2021 (In I.T.A. No.21/Gau/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fortune Vanijya Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati S.J. Road Athgaon, Guwahati-781001. [PAN:AABCF029…

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s is to interpret the law as legislated, giving a fair look and reading to the provision, i.e., the literal rule of interpretation, where the language is clear and unambiguous, referred to as the golden rule of interpretation (CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). The law is an edict of the legislature, with the duty of the courts being to discern the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (PadmasundaraRao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC);Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005]…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s is to interpret the law as legislated, giving a fair look and reading to the provision, i.e., the literal rule of interpretation, where the language is clear and unambiguous, referred to as the golden rule of interpretation (CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). The law is an edict of the legislature, with the duty of the courts being to discern the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (Padmasundara Rao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person for such jurisdictional Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2011] 338 ITR 239/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 447 (Punj. & Har.). 14.2.3 Therefore, question posed whether, in view of the phraseology employed in the section, if the books of account belong to the person searched but entry in such books reflect the undisclosed income of the third party then, whether the AO can assume jurisdiction under s.153C to assess such undisclosed…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 577/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person for such jurisdictional Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2011] 338 ITR 239/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 447 (Punj. & Har.). 14.2.3 Therefore, question posed whether, in view of the phraseology employed in the section, if the books of account belong to the person searched but entry in such books reflect the undisclosed income of the third party then, whether the AO can assume jurisdiction under s.153C to assess such undisclosed…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 576/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person for such jurisdictional Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2011] 338 ITR 239/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 447 (Punj. & Har.). 14.2.3 Therefore, question posed whether, in view of the phraseology employed in the section, if the books of account belong to the person searched but entry in such books reflect the undisclosed income of the third party then, whether the AO can assume jurisdiction under s.153C to assess such undisclosed…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 575/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person for such jurisdictional Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2011] 338 ITR 239/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 447 (Punj. & Har.). 14.2.3 Therefore, question posed whether, in view of the phraseology employed in the section, if the books of account belong to the person searched but entry in such books reflect the undisclosed income of the third party then, whether the AO can assume jurisdiction under s.153C to assess such undisclosed…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ramsubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

…on 17. 06. 2008 were incriminating in nature and prima facie represented undisclosed income. " 4.4 While deciding the above substantial question of law, the High Court relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) and consequent circular no. 24/2015 dt 31.12.2015 issued by CBDT and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The High Court held as follows: " We answer substantial question oflaw no. 2 by holding that the tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessment under section 153C was valid despite there being no satisfactionrecorded to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 326/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ramsubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

…on 17. 06. 2008 were incriminating in nature and prima facie represented undisclosed income. " 4.4 While deciding the above substantial question of law, the High Court relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) and consequent circular no. 24/2015 dt 31.12.2015 issued by CBDT and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The High Court held as follows: " We answer substantial question oflaw no. 2 by holding that the tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessment under section 153C was valid despite there being no satisfactionrecorded to…

Sri. Ravi Shankar Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

Section 234ASection 56(2)(ix)

…ctly gathered from the language of the provision particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions in this regard 1. Smt.Tarulata Sharadas Vs CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345(SC) 2. CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) 3. Indian Bank Associations and Ors. Vs Devkala Consultancy Services and Ors (2CC1) 267 ITR 179 (SC) 4. Nathuram Agarwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (SC) 5. Tata Consultancy Services Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 271 ITR 401(sc) According to the Ld. AR, the above principle is even more applicable in this case as the a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lakshmi Vanketesh Transport, Hospet

In the result, all the appeals of the assesses are allowed, while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act”. The Honble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. ITA Nos. 1813 to 1818 & 1789 to 1791/Bang/2017 Page 20 of 25 The Hon’ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incriminating in nature and prima facie represent undis…