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

survey action u/s 133A, as income\nunder the Profit and Gains from Business & profession\ninstead of treating it as \"Unexplained investments u/s 69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed

M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

survey operation under Section 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee's firm on 12.7.2016 to verify the compliance of TDS provisions. The Assessing Officer on verifying the facts and the information and dealt on the provisions of Section 194IA of the Act and found that the assessee has not deducted TDS on payments and raised

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and dismissing the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a survey was conducted u/s. 133A

CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and dismissing the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a survey was conducted u/s. 133A

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay. The ld.Pr.CIT has pointed out that the AO has ignored the issue which was the subject matter of the survey carried out u/s 133A

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the appellant on 10/02/2020. The appellant during the course of statement recorded under section 131 of the Act had without any basis had inadvertently declared and estimated the profit from the business of the appellant at 10% of the total turnover achieved during the previous assessment years

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return u/s. 139(1) for all the 3 years. Search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 01.02.2017 in the business premises of Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Udupi and documents were seized

SRI.SATISH C.KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019 (AY 2014-15): 3. First, we take up for adjudication. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner

SRI SATISH C KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019 (AY 2014-15): 3. First, we take up for adjudication. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner

RAJARATHNAM'S JEWELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

133A. Page 7 of 24 14. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice dated 02.05.2013 informing the Assessee that a special audit of accounts of the Assessee has to be carried out u/s 142(2A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee by letters dated 11.5.2013 submitted revised unaudited financial statements

SHRI. SANNAPPA RAMAPPA,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the assessee’s premises and in continuation of the proceedings thereof, the assessee admitted and declared an additional income amounting to Rs.10,05,110/-(as listed on page 4 of the order of assessment). The AO, however, after further examination of the assessee’s case, concluded the assessment u/s

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

delay, it was agreed to declare the purchases made from certain parties as its income. Meanwhile it was in the process of obtaining confirmations from suppliers. It could obtain confirmations from Mr. Abdul Rasheed and Mr. Sayyad Ebrahim. Confirmations received from parties were produced before us. Hence, the income admitted during the search proceedings in respect of said suppliers

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

condone the delay in filing appeal before him. 2. The assessee herein is a bank. The revenue carried out survey operations u/s 133A

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

133A was not authorised to administer an\noath and record a sworn statement.\n17.8.\nWithout prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making the impugned addition merely on the\nmistaken statements of Sri. Nagendra Pai, without any\ncogent evidence and without providing an opportunity to\ncross-examine Mr. Ashok Shenoy, manager of M/s. Shenoy\n& Co. or other managers

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

133A was not authorised to administer an\noath and record a sworn statement.\n\n17.8.\nWithout prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making the impugned addition merely on the\nmistaken statements of Sri. Nagendra Pai, without any\ncogent evidence and without providing an opportunity to\ncross-examine Mr. Ashok Shenoy, manager of M/s. Shenoy\n& Co. or other