DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

deemed dividend as per the provisions of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is a failure to do so on the part of the assessee which has resulted in understatement of income of ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 7 of 78 Rs.6.85 crores. I therefore have reason

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) also will not survive. The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is allowed in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.1357/Bang/2018 14. We will now take up the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised 19 grounds including the legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of reassessment

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) also will not survive. The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is allowed in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.1357/Bang/2018 14. We will now take up the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised 19 grounds including the legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of reassessment

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and to that extent income has escaped assessment. The assessee filed its objections challenging the validity of the reassessment

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment orders as the assessments were not abated and therefore in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of deemed dividend

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 8. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

NITESH SHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

deemed dividend if any was to be restricted to the extent of the accumulated profits of Rs. 69,04,318/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds at the time of hearing the appeal. 4. In the view of the above

SRI BHASKAR RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO did not doubt with the claim of Rs.8.50 lakhs made by the assessee against the gross receipts of Rs.100 lakhs. 7. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of a company named M/s Ind-Sing Developers P Ltd on 26- 08-2008. During the course of search, certain documents belonging

MR.JOHN L SEBASTIAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

reassessment was completed on 12.12.2007, determining total income of Rs.1,02,36,398. One of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was dividend income of Rs.25,00,000. The A.O. held that sum of Rs.25 lakh was received during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2003-2004 for which the assessee is not entitled to any exemption

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

deemed dividend and is liable to tax. In fact these directors had not filed returns. They filed returns Page 12 of 24 only after the proceedings were initiated under s. 147. Though they disclosed this income in the said return, the AO did not apply his mind properly to the said income and therefore, by a mistake or by oversight

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

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

deemed dividend. Further, in the order giving effect, the Ld.AO retained the income assessed under section 115 JB of the Act at Rs.1,20,97,36,141/- that was confirmed in the appeal by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO however, varied the interest computed under section 234B and C in the order giving effect to, based upon the original assessment

SRI MANOJ THARIAN,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia, Accounant Member

reassessment as per Ground No. 2 & 3 in ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 and as per Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 1015/Bang/2019 are not pressed and accordingly, these grounds are rejected as not pressed. ITA Nos. 1014 to 1015(Bang)2019 2 3. Thereafter, he submitted that the issue on merit to be decided in these two appeals is regarding

M/S. MICROGENESIS TECHSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia, Accounant Member

reassessment as per Ground No. 2 & 3 in ITA No. 1014/Bang/2019 and as per Ground No. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 1015/Bang/2019 are not pressed and accordingly, these grounds are rejected as not pressed. ITA Nos. 1014 to 1015(Bang)2019 2 3. Thereafter, he submitted that the issue on merit to be decided in these two appeals is regarding

M/S. BRINDAVAN PHOSPHATES PVT. LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Lalit Kumar

reassessment can be made. In case of completed assessments on the date of search, the assessment under Section 153A can be made only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of document or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

deemed to be capital gains. Further, sub-clause (iv) of clause (22) of Section 2 of the Act excludes any payment made by a company on purchase of its own shares in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 77A of the Companies Act from the ambit of ‘dividend’. Finance Act, 2013 subsequently introduced section 115QA (w.e.f. 1.6.2013) to provide

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot