SRI KORAMANGALA MUNIREDDY CHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 23(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we hold that since the rent received is nil because of vacancy, the addition made by the A. O. is not justified and hence deleted. 6. Regarding ground no. 3 in ITA No. 1274/Bang/2017, he submitted that page no. 8 of the order of CIT (A) is relevant in respect

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

House, No.22, M G Road, Bangalore. …. Appellant. PAN AABCT 0529M Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T.A. No.967/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 19.11.2014. Date of Pronouncement : 6.2.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (surpa) and after having been understood the same has clearly laid down the principle that a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed without there being any existene of incriminating material. 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), after considering all the relevant decisions on this point

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

115 JB which were hitherto excluded by virtue of provisions of sub-section 6 to section 115JB. 6.2 In the computation shown in the return of income, the assessee did not include SEZ profits in book profits on the ground that it has challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. The AO did not agree with this contention

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

SRI. GIREESHSHASTRI SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE ,GAJENDRAGAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

115 JB although no material was found specific to such addition. The Court held that under Section 153A "the additions need not be restricted or limited to the incriminating material, which was found during the course of search." Consequently even if no incriminating material was found for the addition under Section 115JB of the Act, since there was some incriminating

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

115 JB although no material was found specific to such addition. The Court held that under Section 153A "the additions need not be restricted or limited to the incriminating material, which was found during the course of search." Consequently even if no incriminating material was found for the addition under Section 115JB of the Act, since there was some incriminating