DANDU JOJAPPA FRANCIS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains at Rs. 2,83,61,200/- apart from the other additions. Admittedly, the income estimated by the AO is more than Rs. 50 Lakhs and the notice was also issued after the period of 3 years and therefore the assessing officer has to obtain the prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. The section 151

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or any books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains tax, in the impugned appeal, the very same transactions have been considered as business income. The same approach was adopted for the same property / project for AY 2011-12. This is a contradiction to the Revenue's own position in the ld. AO's order under section 143(3) of the Act. The search assessment

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

151,74,000/- and concluded the assessment.\nPage 3 of 13\nITA No.825/Bang/2024\nJagajit Singh Bajwa, Bangalore\nWherein in her order page No. 8 in computation it has been\nmentioned as follows:\n1. Income from House Properties as declared (-) Rs. 1,59,260/-\n2. Income form Business as declared\nRs. 14,88,731/-\n3. Income from Other sources as declared

M/S. GOKULDAS EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

151(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 M/s. Gokaldas Exports 2. The mandatory conditions to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act does not exist for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The reasons recorded for issue of notice under

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.

section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains chargeable to tax. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in not following the ratios laid down in the following decisions which were

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.

section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains chargeable to tax. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in not following the ratios laid down in the following decisions which were

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A

SEENAPPA CHANDRA SHEKAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain. 7. The learned and CIT – A in paragraph number 3.1 of his order has tabulated that 5 opportunities was granted to the assessee but none of them have been availed of and therefore the assessee has no information to offer and does not want to prosecute the appeal and therefore same was dismissed. 8. The assessee aggrieved with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

capital gains and other sources. The Revenue does not have a case that total receipts (from business) of the assessee in any of the 3 years preceding the relevant previous years had exceeded Rs.10,00,000/-. On perusal of the approval issued under Section 151

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 A53A RETURN FILED 25.11.2020 25,11.2020 25.11.2020 25.11.2020 ADDITION MADE DISALLOWED

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 26.10.2020 A53A RETURN FILED 25.11.2020 25,11.2020 25.11.2020 25.11.2020 ADDITION MADE DISALLOWED