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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292C that the material seized belongs to the searched person as the assessing officer by his own action of making assessment under section 153C in the case of trustees relying upon the very same seized material. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1354 - ITAT Delhi

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

Capital gain on transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Private Limited Rs. 103,36,94,904/- (Substantive addition) (16) Income from other sources on account of transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Rs. 104,97,55,888/- (Protective addition) 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assesse filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A), which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved

AMIT BANTHIA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gains. According to the ld. CIT(A), this corroborated the case of the Assessing . ITA No.2324 & 2325/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 13 Officer. The denial by the assessee was found to be weak and unconvincing. The addition was therefore confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before

CHANDULAL BANTHIA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gains. According to the ld. CIT(A), this corroborated the case of the Assessing . ITA No.2324 & 2325/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 13 Officer. The denial by the assessee was found to be weak and unconvincing. The addition was therefore confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE vs. MR. SHORFF KRISHNARAJASETTY SATHEESHA, KODAGU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

292C. 99[(1)] Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 1[or survey under section 133A], it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed— (i) that such books

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains shown by the Assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of the assessing officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and the consequential assessment was to be annulled. k. Reliance is also placed on the parity of reasoning laid

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

292C of the Act in making the addition in as \nmuch as though there is presumption as to belonging and \ncorrectness there is no presumption that the content therein \nindicates the income of the assessee.\n\nii. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in effectively upholding use \nof the declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

292C of the Act in making the addition in as much as though there is presumption as to belonging and correctness there is no presumption that the content therein indicates the income of the assessee. ii. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in attempting to use the declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act said to be made