DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

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

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

143(3) for AY 2021-22, whereas for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21,\nassessments were framed under section 153A of the Act. This clearly\ndemonstrates that the AO also considered that the search was\nconducted during FY 2020-21, which is in full agreement with the\nstatutory interpretation given under the sixth proviso to section 153B

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

143(3) for AY 2021-22, whereas for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21,\nassessments were framed under section 153A of the Act. This clearly\ndemonstrates that the AO also considered that the search was\nconducted during FY 2020-21, which is in full agreement with the\nstatutory interpretation given under the sixth proviso to section 153B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Housing, though the material found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer was justified in considering the same in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further the Act does not contemplate parallel proceedings under section 153A and 153C of the Act. The acceptance of the contention of the assessee would be contrary to the scheme