M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS by Mrs. Kalavathi K from her Central Bank of India IT(IT)A No.193/Bang/2025 Arun Duraiswamy, Mysore Page 6 of 23 account on 30/03/2015. The confirmation from Central Bank of India was also produced. The source for the funds in Central Bank of India was from gold loan taken- account A/c. No. 344549861. 3.2 During the assessment proceedings

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS on Raghavan 1,99,46,440 194IA(P) sale of property N Menon CIB-403 Time deposit exceeding - 11,75,035 Rs.2,00,000 The AO after considering the reply of the assessee, concluded the assessment proceedings by holding that the assessee has failed to establish the sources of fund for making cash deposits to the extent of Rs.10

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A of the Act on 20.7.2009 is to be considered as true and he has nothing to declare as undisclosed income. This has been countered by the ld. AO by observing as under:  “The assessee has stated that the loan advanced to Sri Mahesh is R 2,10,00,000.  As the balance shown in the return of income

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A of the Act on 20.7.2009 is to be considered as true and he has nothing to declare as undisclosed income. This has been countered by the ld. AO by observing as under:  “The assessee has stated that the loan advanced to Sri Mahesh is R 2,10,00,000.  As the balance shown in the return of income

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

1) are, that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable assets or books of account or document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred in section 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall handover to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of such other person, the books of account or document

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

M/S. GMS HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

1) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.06.2014. Since the time for issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the Act against the original return has been expired it is deemed that the assessment was concluded and by issuing notice under section 153A, the Revenue intent to reopen the concluded assessment