NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

153C read with section\n153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section\n132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under\nsection 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:\nProvided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as\nper this section, the time

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

153C of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2020 admitting the same income as reported in return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

153C of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2020 admitting the same income as reported in return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

153C of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2020 admitting the same income as reported in return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

153C of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2020 admitting the same income as reported in return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits in case of business

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits in case of business

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits in case of business

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits in case of business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance has been computed without disclosing reasons which led the assessing authority to hold such belief, in our opinion, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to take action under sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 53. In CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd 2012-TIOL-512-HC-MUM-IT, the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court held

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section

P. SHYAMARAJU & CO.(I) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section

M/S P. SHYAMARAJU & CO.(I) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section

M/S P. SHYAMARAJU & CO.(I) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation based on material found in the course of search conducted by the Department in the case of some other person. This judgment also supports the contention of the assessee that no addition could be made in the assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, based on materials found and seized from some other person, unless provisions of section