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, 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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house], has to be complied as they cannot be overlooked. In future the Government may consider amending the Act and extending the timelines as laid down in Section 54F from the date of approval of Sanction Plan by the Govt. Agencies. Based on the above discussion of facts and circumstances, the ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the decision taken

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in the premises of M/s.H.M. Construction and group concerns on 30.06.2011. Consequent to the search action, the case of the assessee was centralized from Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Bangalore to the office of the DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore, vide order dated

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in the premises of M/s.H.M. Construction and group concerns on 30.06.2011. Consequent to the search action, the case of the assessee was centralized from Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Bangalore to the office of the DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore, vide order dated

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in the premises of M/s.H.M. Construction and group concerns on 30.06.2011. Consequent to the search action, the case of the assessee was centralized from Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Bangalore to the office of the DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore, vide order dated

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in the premises of M/s.H.M. Construction and group concerns on 30.06.2011. Consequent to the search action, the case of the assessee was centralized from Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Bangalore to the office of the DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore, vide order dated

M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in the premises of M/s.H.M. Construction and group concerns on 30.06.2011. Consequent to the search action, the case of the assessee was centralized from Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Bangalore to the office of the DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore, vide order dated

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

292B and Section 144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

VEERANNA MURTHY RAGHAVENDRA DEEKSHITH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House Property of Rs.3,90,981/- and Income from Profits and Gains of Business of Rs. 15,47,216/-. The assessee is a wholesale and retail distributor of Cadbury products manufactured by M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited for the entire region of North Bangalore. The distribution process carried out by the assessee entails order booking & delivery/ distribution

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

292B of the Act. In coming to this decision, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court referred to para 6 of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR (Delhi) 500. 10.3 In view of the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above

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

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024