SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

143(3) of the Act. Following additions were made to the returned income: Returned Income 2,09,08,576 Add : Disallowance of Deduction U/s. 54F 49,27,996 Disallowance of Interest Paid in Computing Long Term Capital Gain 7,82,394 ----------------- Assessed Income 2,66,18,966 ----------------- & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 24 4. In the return of income filed

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(1) of the Act:- • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(1) of the Act:- • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

143(3) or 144 had been made before. • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 40. It is to be noted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed u/s 143(1) of the Act:-  Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.)  Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 35. It is submitted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) or 144 had been made before and the return was merely processed u/s 143(1) of the Act:-  Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.)  Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 35. It is submitted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143[3] r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 has clearly stated that “I fully agree with the views of assessment of earlier Assessing Officer regarding taxability of capital gains

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected for framing scrutiny assessment by Revenue under CASS. Statuary notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

143(3) of the Act originally on\n29.03.2016 accepting the submissions of the assessee and alter on passing of\nOrder by the learned CIT(A) on returned income originally filed by the\nassessee under section 139(1) of the Act of Rs.5,29,40,890/- was accepted and\nthe capital gain