T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

133A of the Act as well as the notice u/s 148 was the income on sale of land by the assessee. Therefore, this cannot be a case of lack of enquiry when there is enough investigation and enquiry conducted by the AO. The issue was examined by the AO during the survey proceedings and applied his mind while issuing

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

house property and claimed deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. However the assessee is claiming significant cost of improvement to the extent of Rs 3 Crores claimed to be incurred during FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08. This is not reflecting in the returns of income filed during the period. M/s. Power Point, Bangalore Page

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

133A and physical inspection of the premises of the new undertaking on 23/02/2006 and statements were also recorded. In the original return the assessee had made a claim for deduction u/s 10B in respect of the undertaking known as M/s Bharat Mines & Minerals which was established in pursuance of the legal agreement executed with Development Commissioner of CSEZ dt. 03/06/2003

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A during the course\nof which the revenue authorities found certain loose papers\nin which some numerical entries were recorded. At the time\nof survey, one of the partners of the firm agreed to surrender\nthe amount mentioned in loose papers -as- an unexplained\ninvestment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from\nthe statement made.\nThe Assessing Officer made addition

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A during the course\nof which the revenue authorities found certain loose papers\nin which some numerical entries were recorded. At the time\nof survey, one of the partners of the firm agreed to surrender\nthe amount mentioned in loose papers -as- an unexplained\ninvestment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from\nthe statement made.\n\nThe Assessing Officer made addition

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A during the course\nof which the revenue authorities found certain loose papers\nin which some numerical entries were recorded. At the time\nof survey, one of the partners of the firm agreed to surrender\nthe amount mentioned in loose papers -as- an unexplained\ninvestment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from\nthe statement made.\n\nThe Assessing Officer made addition

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A during the course\nof which the revenue authorities found certain loose papers\nin which some numerical entries were recorded. At the time\nof survey, one of the partners of the firm agreed to surrender\nthe amount mentioned in loose papers -as- an unexplained\ninvestment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from\nthe statement made.\nThe Assessing Officer made addition

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A during the course\nof which the revenue authorities found certain loose papers\nin which some numerical entries were recorded. At the time\nof survey, one of the partners of the firm agreed to surrender\nthe amount mentioned in loose papers -as- an unexplained\ninvestment. Subsequently, the said partner retracted from\nthe statement made.\nThe Assessing Officer made addition

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

house property’. The return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 on 24.10.07 declaring total income of Rs.36,04,060 comprising of income from property of Rs.33,88,276 and income from business of Rs.2,15,779. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s. 133A

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

property. The mere issue of warrant of authorization\nwithout there being search of the premises mentioned in the warrant\nof authorization would be meaningless and would not serve the\npurpose of section 132 of the Act. It may be illustrated by taking an\nexample that if warrant of authorization under section 132 is issued in\nthe name of “A” after

THIBBANAHALLI NIJAGUNAIAH JAVARAYI GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

survey proceedings u/s 133A incriminating documents were found showing Rs. 1,88,17,477/- as excessive cash. 4. The appellant owns house property

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

House, First Cross\nN.G. Road, Attavar\nManguluru 575 001\nKarnataka\nPAN NO: AAGCM8310E\nAPPELLANT\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\nDCIT\nVs.\nCentral Circle-1\nManguluru\nRESPONDENT\nSri Narendra Sharma, A.R.\nMs. Neera Malhotra, D.R.\n22.05.2024\n03.07.2024\nORDER\nPER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nAll these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years\n2013