VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 17. As already stated, the aforesaid amendment is prospective and will apply only from A.Y. 2015-16. In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

133A of the Act and searchstatements\nunder section 132(4) of the Actthe name and quantum is appearing in the list.\nTherefore, it is clear that the very basis for reopening and completing assessment\nis on the basis of section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, the assessement should\nhave been completed under section 153C of the Act. Therefore, assessment

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

133A and further by giving a reason that the assessee has used the advance fees received for revenue as well as capital expenditure is not justified and accordingly we set aside the orders of authorities below qua this issue and remit the same to the record of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue from the record produced

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEDICAL ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

133A and further by giving a reason that the assessee has used the advance fees received for revenue as well as capital expenditure is not justified and accordingly we set aside the orders of authorities below qua this issue and remit the same to the record of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue from the record produced

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations of the Appellant and is within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

133A of the Act was\nconducted at the business premises of the assessee as on 21st August\n2017. During the course of survey operation, the notice under section\n133(6) of the Act was issued to sub-registrar office. The information\nreceived in response to the notice revealed that the assessee during the\nF.Y. 2014-15 relevant to assessment year

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act was\nconducted at the business premises of the assessee as on 21st August\n2017. During the course of survey operation, the notice under section\n133(6) of the Act was issued to sub-registrar office. The information\nreceived in response to the notice revealed that the assessee during the\nF.Y. 2014-15 relevant to assessment year

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

133A of the Act was\nconducted at the business premises of the assessee as on 21st August\n2017. During the course of survey operation, the notice under section\n133(6) of the Act was issued to sub-registrar office. The information\nreceived in response to the notice revealed that the assessee during the\nF.Y. 2014-15 relevant to assessment year

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

ACIT vs. M/S VSL MINING CO. P. LTD.,,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

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

133A of the Act on 25.03.2008 during which certain documents were impounded. Subsequently, a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.04.2008 in the case of one Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain at Hospet, in the course of which certain documents and materials were found and seized from his premises. Several statements under section

V.S.L. MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

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

133A of the Act on 25.03.2008 during which certain documents were impounded. Subsequently, a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.04.2008 in the case of one Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain at Hospet, in the course of which certain documents and materials were found and seized from his premises. Several statements under section

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

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

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

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n\n5. 1. The Assessee filed the original return of income