KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

demonetization period\". It\nwould indicate that the case was selected for scrutiny but for the issue of cash deposit during\ndemonetization, this mention of the issue would indicate that it was for a limited purpose of\nscrutinizing the cash deposits during demonetization. Its scope for making other additions\nwould only be enlarged by following due procedure laid down

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

demonetized currency as per the notification/circular issued by the CBDT from time to time. 12. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Before going into the merit of the case, first we are considering the only legal issue raised

DORISWAMY GOPI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period to Shri Kotha Venkatrathnam Rajesh, Hosur (TN) (PAN;-AEIPR6515H) on 08.11.2016 for purchase of jewellery. The assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2017-18 4. Basis of forming reason to believe:- In view of the detailed analysis made in para 2&3 abvoe, I have reason to believe that income of more than 1 lakh

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

reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia with Section 153A. D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification

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

reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia with Section 153A. D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification

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

reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia with Section 153A. D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification

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

reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia with Section 153A. D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification

ARIF HUSSAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period. Therefore, in our opinion, the entire issue of cash deposited during the financial year 2016-17 relevant for the assessment year 2017-18 has been remanded to the file of AO to carry out necessary verification of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Since we held that this Tribunal vide order dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

reassessment under Section 153C follows lines pari materia\nwith Section 153A.\nD. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal\nfiction on the basis of which the commencement date for\ncomputation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to\nbe the date of receipt of books of accounts by the\njurisdictional AO. The identification

SHRUTHI KISHORE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment be quashed, as it is impractical and unjustified b. Hold that the addition made by the Learned AO be dismissed summarily as untenable as the source of cash deposits are wedding gifts, which are exempt from tax as per the provisions of the Act. c. For the grounds as mentioned above and other grounds that may be urged

MAHESH LINGAPPA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment is liable to be cancelled. Page 3 of 7 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is in the business of liquor and he had filed the return of income originally disclosing fully and accordingly the 4. assessment as made by applying the provision of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act will not applicable

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." 4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." 4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassessment cannot be\ndeclared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.\"\n4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the\npresent case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is\ndefective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is\nsought to be imposed. Following the decision

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." 4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." 4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." 4.4 It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

demonetization. The additional income was offered solely to pay\ntaxes.\nb) Only 2 contractors were examined. No cheque book of G. Rama\nRao was found, and though a statement was recorded from G. Rama\nRao, no addition was made for payments made to G. Rama Rao though\nthe same was used to obtain a statement from the Partner