← All Phrases

“Section 132(1)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(1)(iii)20 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 132(1)(iii) is Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (379 ITR 347), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 132(1)(iii)

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
379 ITR 347 · 2015 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.
286 ITR 1 · 2006 · High Court
359
citing judgments

For interest on borrowed capital to be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), there must be a nexus between the use of the borrowed funds and the purpose of the business. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008).

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT
161 Taxmann 218 · 2007 · Supreme Court
236
citing judgments

Mens rea is a necessary ingredient to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as 'inaccurate' signifies a deliberate act or omission by the assessee. Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) grants discretionary jurisdiction to the assessing authority regarding penalty amounts.

B Kishore Kumar v. DCIT
234 Taxmann 771 · 2015 · Supreme Court
135
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision is cited as authority in search and seizure assessment proceedings.

Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT
254 ITR 799 · 2002 · Supreme Court
119
citing judgments

Interest paid on delayed payment of statutory dues, such as sales tax, service tax, TDS, and GST, is compensatory in nature rather than penal. Consequently, such interest is an allowable deduction in computing business profits.

CIT v. Hotel Savera
239 ITR 795 · 1999 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT
269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court
108
citing judgments

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

Judgments citing Section 132(1)(iii)

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2815/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2815/Chny/2025 & Sa No.105/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 S.Chandra Prakash, No.13/5, Vritti Apartment, 2A, Ormes Road, 3Rd Cross Street, Kilpauk S.O, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Ito, Vs. Central Circle – 3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaapc-4541-Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Ам: This Appeal & Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 08.08.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Against The Order Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

held as stock-in-trade by the assessee, there is no provision under the law to seize the same. As per proviso to Section 132(1)(iii), jewellery being held as stock in trade of the business found as a result of search should not be seized by the authorized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar

ITA 903/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Sri. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes(Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1561/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

hence the burden lies on the revenue to prove they belong to the appellant, which has not been done in the present case. Section 132(1)(iii) of the Act allows seizure only of books of account or other documents contemplated in clauses (a) and (b) of section 132(1

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1559/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1549/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1548/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, Kolar

ITA 1547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1060/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT (DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a)/(b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a)/(b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a)/(b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

section (1) of section 132. The books of account or other documents referred to in section 132(4A) are those referred to in section 132(1)(iii) read with section 132(1)(a)/(b). The assessee has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that