LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 148 for several years to the assessee cannot be equated with recording of combined reasons 148 for several years because, in reply to notice u/s 148, the assessee is required to make compliance within a prescribed time by filing return of income but by recording of reasons for reassessment, the action is to be taken by the AO only

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 148 for several years to the assessee cannot be equated with recording of combined reasons 148 for several years because, in reply to notice u/s 148, the assessee is required to make compliance within a prescribed time by filing return of income but by recording of reasons for reassessment, the action is to be taken by the AO only

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 148 for several years to the assessee cannot be equated with recording of combined reasons 148 for several years because, in reply to notice u/s 148, the assessee is required to make compliance within a prescribed time by filing return of income but by recording of reasons for reassessment, the action is to be taken by the AO only

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 148 for several years to the assessee cannot be equated with recording of combined reasons 148 for several years because, in reply to notice u/s 148, the assessee is required to make compliance within a prescribed time by filing return of income but by recording of reasons for reassessment, the action is to be taken by the AO only

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

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

capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked to produce details of bills/vouchers and documentary proof for the developmental expenditure charged to the P&L account and consequently statement u/s 133A

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

u/s. 133A of the Act conducted in the case of M/s. VBDPL. In the course of such survey, the Revenue came to know about the joint development agreement between the assessee and VBDPL and the fact that capital gain

C. JAGANNATH HUF,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee, the AO came to know that the assessees have entered into a JDA dated 01.06.2005 and therefore this constitutes a tangible material to believe that the income chargeable to tax being capital gain

CHENNAKESHAVA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee, the AO came to know that the assessees have entered into a JDA dated 01.06.2005 and therefore this constitutes a tangible material to believe that the income chargeable to tax being capital gain

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

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

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

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

capital account in a partnership firm m/s. Karkesia Estates shows distinctively In the financial statements and the same has been allowed by the same CIT(A) for A Y 2009- 10 on cumulative basis under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 5 of 107 18. The learned

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains due to excess claim of cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.20,50,216 and (ii) Deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,70,40,704 towards the claim of exemption under section 54B of the Act, holding that the assessee was entitled to this exemption, which has been unjustifiably denied. 3.6 Aggrieved by this order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

capital gain. On the contrary, there was no material available with the revenue that could point out any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, which would warrant making of the addition of Rs.25 crores. In the absence of any incriminating material, the question of assessing any non-existing undisclosed income shall not arise. Hence the tax authorities are not justified