M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

139 (1) . ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 41 subsequently other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance from the assessee side IN light of the above a final show cause notice was given u/s 144 dated 04.03.2013 proposing to complete the assessment on the basis of materials available on record . All the issues

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

139 (1) . ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 41 subsequently other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance from the assessee side IN light of the above a final show cause notice was given u/s 144 dated 04.03.2013 proposing to complete the assessment on the basis of materials available on record . All the issues

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 271 (l)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, the penalty was to be deleted.” 5.6 This was also supported by the order of the Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Indira Agarwal in ITA No.1444/JP/2018 dated 22.3.2019 wherein held as under: 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The question arises whether

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

section 37(1) of the Act under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\nc) Without prejudice, the authorities below erred in\ndisallowing the bad debts written off of Rs.3,28,25,539/-\nbeing amounts receivable from M/s. Sri Krishna Minerals,\nHospet despite the finding of the assessing officer that the\nclaim of the appellant is allowable under the facts

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

section 133A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961, are as follows: (i) an admission is extremely an important\npiece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it\nis open to the person who made the admission to show that it is\nincorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper\nopportunity to show that

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was\ndefined to mean those years which would

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was\ndefined to mean those years which would

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

139 of the act for assessment year 2017 – 18 was 7/12/2017 and search took place on 7/8/2019 and last date for the issue of notice under section 143 (2) was 30/9/2018 and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash sales for assessment year 2017 – 18. This has been deleted

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

139 of the act for assessment year 2017 – 18 was 7/12/2017 and search took place on 7/8/2019 and last date for the issue of notice under section 143 (2) was 30/9/2018 and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash sales for assessment year 2017 – 18. This has been deleted

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

139 of the act for assessment year 2017 – 18 was 7/12/2017 and search took place on 7/8/2019 and last date for the issue of notice under section 143 (2) was 30/9/2018 and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash sales for assessment year 2017 – 18. This has been deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

139 of the act for assessment year 2017 – 18 was 7/12/2017 and search took place on 7/8/2019 and last date for the issue of notice under section 143 (2) was 30/9/2018 and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash sales for assessment year 2017 – 18. This has been deleted

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind