JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the variousITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately.\n14.2 Regarding bogus carriage outward expenses the ld. D.R.\nsubmitted that during the course of the search, it was noticed that\nJDPL was inflating the carriage outwards to certain extent as the\nsame modus followed under the head of sales promotion expenses.\nDuring the course of the search

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(c) of the Act granted 50 days to respond, up to 22-02-2018, whereas the standard statutory practice and departmental procedure is to allow only 30 days. This abnormal extension of time is highly irregular and reinforces the assessee’s contention that the assessment orders were not passed within the prescribed limitation period

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(c) of the Act granted 50 days to respond, up to 22-02-2018, whereas the standard statutory practice and departmental procedure is to allow only 30 days. This abnormal extension of time is highly irregular and reinforces the assessee’s contention that the assessment orders were not passed within the prescribed limitation period

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(c) of the Act granted 50 days to respond, up to 22-02-2018, whereas the standard statutory practice and departmental procedure is to allow only 30 days. This abnormal extension of time is highly irregular and reinforces the assessee’s contention that the assessment orders were not passed within the prescribed limitation period

H SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

271(1)(c) of the Act granted 50 days to respond, up to 22-02-2018, whereas the standard statutory practice and departmental procedure is to allow only 30 days. This abnormal extension of time is highly irregular and reinforces the assessee’s contention that the assessment orders were not passed within the prescribed limitation period