T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were condition precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were condition precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

gains of business or profession”. Both these sections operate in different fields, the former is an enabling provision while the latter is a disabling provision. Therefore these decisions do not help the plea raised by the Assessee in this appeal. 30. The ld AR also submitted that any sum paid referred in section 40(a)(ii) must be viewed from

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It means the said expenditures were genuinely incurred for the construction of the industrial shed as claimed by the Assessee firm as an improvement cost in the income tax return filed. There are some changes in the claim for the construction of the shed. The earlier claim was made during the year

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

133A was conducted at the company M/s. Intact Developers P. Ltd., in which the assessee is a Director and based on the survey it was found that the assessee had lent unsecured loans to the company and in support of the unsecured loans the assessee filed confirmation letters from the company. Insofar as the source for the loan, the assessee

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A

CHINNASWAMY SUNDER RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 32 of the Act., accordingly he disallowed the setoff of Loss claimed of Rs. 118,24,27,640/-. Further the AO disallowed the Long Term capital Gain of Rs. 13,90,558/- and deemed dividend of Page 12 of 23 Rs. 2,41,72072/- and the assessment was duly completed u/s 153A by order dated 31/03/2022, where the taxable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S MRK GOLD LLP, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

Gains from Business & Profession instead of treating it as "unexplained income u/s 69B of the Act" and to tax at special rates given in section 115B13E of the IT Act." Page 2 of 11 2. Any other grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee

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

133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence,\nany such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such\nstatement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.\"\n5.13 We also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of\nKamla Devi S. Doshi v. Income

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

133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence,\nany such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such\nstatement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.\"\n5.13 We also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of\nKamla Devi S. Doshi v. Income

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 would not\nhave any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on\nthe basis of the statement given by one of the partners of the\nassessee-firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful\nincome of the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court; the\nHon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in view

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India