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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

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

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. 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

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain offered in the original Return of Income Rs.54,24,63,034/- 4.2 As a result of the survey, the Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny based on the guidelines issued for compulsory selection of cases, by issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 23/09/2020. Case was centralized to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

u/s. 133A was conducted at the company M/s. Intact Developers P. Ltd., in which the assessee is a Director and based on the survey it was found that the assessee had lent unsecured loans to the company and in support of the unsecured loans the assessee filed confirmation letters from the company. Insofar as the source for the loan

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

survey on oath has given a statement, that\nthe possession of land has been transferred during the F.Y. 2011-12,\nwhich was also vouched by the said Mr. Srinath Hebbar by giving a\nstatement on oath that the construction has already been started.\n4. Assessee had known the facts of the transaction and admitted that\npossession was handed over

CHINNASWAMY SUNDER RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act in the case of certain third parties and hence the Page 17 of 23 assumption of jurisdiction and issue of notice u/s 153A, for the A.Y. 2017-18, is clearly bad in law and consequently the assessment order passed u/s 153A, dated 31/03/2022, is also held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S MRK GOLD LLP, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

Gains from Business & Profession instead of treating it as "unexplained income u/s 69B of the Act" and to tax at special rates given in section 115B13E of the IT Act." Page 2 of 11 2. Any other grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

survey, the action under section 133A would not\nhave any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on\nthe basis of the statement given by one of the partners of the\nassessee-firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful\nincome of the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court; the\nHon'ble Supreme Court dismissed

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

survey conducted in the premises of assessee, excise records were found which disclosed godown sales not disclosed in the books of account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of undisclosed income of the entire sale proceeds thereof. The Commissioner affirmed the addition but the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no material to indicate that the assessee made

SMT. GOWRAMMA,SHIMOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA, CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

survey u/s. 133A was conducted in case of Shri V. Narasegowda on 30.08.2017 wherein certain materials were found and impounded. On verification of the impounded materials, the Ld.AO noticed that assessee has got her share of developed sites to the tune of 5,924.70 sq.mtrs. as per registered deed dated 08.06.2015. Accordingly, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued calling

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami