K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

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

253. He submitted that however the judgment is related to section 151 of the Act but as per section 282A of the Act, the AO has to sign each and every notices/order/document. He also referred to para Nos.10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment. He also referred to judgment of the jurisdictional High

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.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

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.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

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.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. The case of both the assessees were picked up for CASS. The reasons for selection of both the cases under limited scrutiny was for examination of : ‘Deduction claimed

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. The case of both the assessees were picked up for CASS. The reasons for selection of both the cases under limited scrutiny was for examination of : ‘Deduction claimed

SRI. HAIDER NOMAN KHORAKIWALA,MYSURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

3 years is application. In this context, learned AR relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Bindra Kumar, reported in 253 ITR 343. In so far as the second observation of the learned AO that the assessee has not deposited capital gains amount in capital gains accounts scheme before the date