DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

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

149 (SC). 17. As observed by us that the bonafides of the assessee cannot be doubted, since the assessee has made deposits into the capital gains scheme immediately and thereupon made payments to the developer to acquire the new house property. The assessee was also prevented by reasonable cause since the funds had already been utilized and was forced

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (274 CTR 122), wherein held as under: “Section 153A starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon, the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (274 CTR 122), wherein held as under: “Section 153A starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon, the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2(3), BANGALURU vs. SHRI T.H SURESH BABU, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently

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

Housing Development v. DCIT (supra). 5 ITA No.978/Bang/20114 & Ors. M/s.P.Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt.Ltd. 5.4 As regards the issue whether the assessment order is time barred, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last of the panchnama was drawn on 10.04.2007 and on that date there was a seizure as per Annexure-A/D/SCPL (refer page 66 of PB Vol.1). Consequently