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

capital gain shown in his ITR as his undisclosed income but such undisclosed income in not based on any documents found as a result of search or evidences. During the course of search & seizure

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

seizure action was conducted on M/S\nBrigade Enterprises Ltd on 2/11/2017 at Floor 29 & 30, at World\nTrade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/ 1 Dr. Rajkumar Road,\nMalleswaram, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. During the course of the\nsearch many Sale deeds, agreements, JDA and other documents\nwere seized from the above premises on 04.11.2017 which are\nmarked as A/BCVDPL/B2/01 to A/BCVDPL/B2/06

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. NALAPAD PROPERTIES, BANGALORE

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

seizure action was conducted in the case of M/s. Brigade Enterprise Ltd. on 02.11.2017. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents in the form of Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), sale deeds etc, were found and seized. The A.O. of the searched person observed that these documents were pertaining to the present assessees, therefore, action u/s 153C of the Income

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in the respective returns for the assessment year 1998-99. The Assessing Officer was satisfied as regards the proceeds from the sale of gold but doubted the genuineness of the sale of diamonds at Surat. After conducting a detailed enquiry, he disbelieved that and treated the amount shown as sale proceeds of diamonds in all the three assessments

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. NALAPAD HOTELS AND CONVENTION CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

seizure action was conducted in the case\nof M/s. Brigade Enterprise Ltd. on 02.11.2017. During the course\nof search, certain incriminating documents in the form of Joint\nDevelopment Agreements (JDAs), sale deeds etc, were found and\nseized. The A.O. of the searched person observed that these\ndocuments were pertaining to the present assessees, therefore,\naction u/s 153C of the Income

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

seizure action was\nconducted on the assessee's premises. However, no documents or\nmaterials were seized from the Assessee; it was seized only from the\npremises of SPR Developers Private Limited (“SPRD”), in whose case,\nproceedings were initiated separately. As a result, proceedings under\nsection 153A of the Act were initiated in the Assessee's case. During\nthe search proceedings

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

capital gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

seizure in the case of Mr. Sadhu Salian. This being the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in section 153A and 153C, stands satisfied if the notice is responded and the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. In the present case, the assessee participated in the proceedings, assessee cannot be allowed to turn around or raise objections

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

seizure in the case of Mr. Sadhu Salian. This being the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in section 153A and 153C, stands satisfied if the notice is responded and the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. In the present case, the assessee participated in the proceedings, assessee cannot be allowed to turn around or raise objections

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

seizure action was\nconducted on the assessee's premises. However, no documents or\nmaterials were seized from the Assessee; it was seized only from the\npremises of SPR Developers Private Limited (“SPRD”), in whose case,\nproceedings were initiated separately. As a result, proceedings under\nsection 153A of the Act were initiated in the Assessee's case. During\nthe search proceedings

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 29.11.2017 and consequently notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 08.10.2018. In response to the above notice, the assessee reiterated its original return filed vide letter dated 12.11.2018. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 29.4.2019 and notice

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 29.11.2017 and consequently notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 08.10.2018. In response to the above notice, the assessee reiterated its original return filed vide letter dated 12.11.2018. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 29.4.2019 and notice

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure, are not\ndifficult to imagine. He is virtually put under pressure and is\ndenied of access to external advice or opportunity to think\nindependently. A battalion of officers, who hardly feel any limits\non their power, pounce upon the assessee, as though he is a\nhardcore criminal. The nature of steps, taken during the course\nof search are sometimes

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure, are not\ndifficult to imagine. He is virtually put under pressure and is\ndenied of access to external advice or opportunity to think\nindependently. A battalion of officers, who hardly feel any limits\non their power, pounce upon the assessee, as though he is a\nhardcore criminal. The nature of steps, taken during the course\nof search are sometimes

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

seizure proceedings some incriminating documents were found. However, the assessee raised validity of search before us under section 132(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee

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

seizure proceedings some incriminating documents were found. However, the assessee raised validity of search before us under section 132(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee

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

seizure proceedings some incriminating documents were found. However, the assessee raised validity of search before us under section 132(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee

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

Capital subsidy she submitted that\nthis ground was not adjudicated by ld. CIT(A).\nFinally, she relied on following judgements:\n(i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of\nVideo Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein\nheld as under:\n“A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

capital gain. Therefore, \nthere can be no protective assessment.” \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the entire protective addition \nof Rs.86,95,409/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a \nsubstantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and \nneeds to be deleted. \n\nIn any case