← All Phrases

“protective assessment”

MiscellaneousAssessmentAssessment441 judgments

The decision most relied on for protective assessment is Lalji Haridas v. ITO (43 ITR 387), cited in 238 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on protective assessment

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
178 ITR 451 · 1989 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT
39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

Judgments citing protective assessment

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. M/S S.K.G. Estate Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 974/DEL/2015[2007-8]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

protective basis. 2. As the substantive assessment is yet to be made in the A.Y. 2008- 09 to keep the protective assessment made in A.Y. 2007-08 alive till the assessment of A.Y. 2008-09 does not reach finality at the assessment as well as appellate stage, the appeal ... made by the AO on protective basis. 2. As the substantive assessment is yet to be made in A.Y. 2008-09., to keep the protective assessment made in A. Y. 2007-08 alive till the assessment of A. Y. 2008-09 does not reach finality at the assessment as well

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Board has indicated that once the same income is assessed as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee, the protective assessment needs to be cancelled after the relevant assessments have become final and conclusive. The Circular also indicates that the only method of doing this

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

measure, he added the same in the hands of the assessee on protective basis but as discussed the facts in para-8 (supra) even protective assessment in the case of assessee is not tenable. In the light of above, we do not see any reason to interfere in the findings

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Sudama Textiles Tradings P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Room No. 4, Shivram Patel Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Chowk, Hanuman Nagar, Kurar Mumbai-400021. Village, Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaocs 4200 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 69C

protective made on protective basis. Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd. Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd. 6 5.1 We are of the opinion that protective assessments are framed We are of the opinion that protective assessments are framed We are of the opinion that protective assessments are framed by an Assessing ... which year the income is chargeable to year the income is chargeable to tax. Main purpose of the making Main purpose of the making protective assessment is to protect from action in the hands of the protective assessment is to protect from action in the hands of the protective assessment

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

assessee is of a commercial purpose. The A.O assessed this as business profit amounting to Rs. 1,44,31,642/-. Alternatively, the A.O made protective assessment also treated the income from sale of house property as Long Term Capital Gain, but denied the claim of deduction

Amrshi M. Nishar, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3263/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 1Section 132(1)Section 133Section 133ASection 153CSection 69

same, and therefore, the fact that the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order in case of searched person has made protective assessment of unaccounted proceeds from sale of galas/units of Hi-Speed Project (INR 6.74 Crores) in the hands of searched person establishes that the Assessing Officer was satisfied that

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri V C Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri.V.C.Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Sri. Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence

Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sagha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

years 2012-13 to 2014-15. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 by revenue are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is emanated from the protective assessment order. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed the appeal No.2775/Bang/2017 & 2777/Bang/2018 for which Ld. A.R. made an endorsement. Hence