M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

11 of the Act.\n47. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

11 of the Act.\n47.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A) and contended that there was no incriminating material found in\nrelation to the year under consideration. Therefore, the proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act cannot be initiated for the year under\nconsideration and assessment made in the absence of incriminating\nmaterial being unearthed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings for the year 2003-04, it was found that purchases worth Rs.61.40 lakhs were not supported by sufficient evidence. Purchase of such goods from various suppliers was verified, but it was found that such parties had not supplied the goods as named by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the entire amount of purchase

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

11, has committed any specified violation as defined in Explanation\n2 to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or the Explanation to\nsub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, he shall-\n(a) send a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to\nwithdraw the approval or registration, as the case

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed\nas infructuous

4 of the appeal has\nchallenged the validity of the search under section 132 of the Act, notice\nissued under section 153A of the Act and assessment framed under\nsection 153A of the Act on different technical grounds.\n106. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee on\nmerit of the case has been decided

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

11, has committed any specified violation as defined in Explanation\n2 to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or the Explanation to\nsub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, he shall-\n(a) send a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to\nwithdraw the approval or registration, as the case

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

4) of the Act on 18.1.2018, which is much beyond the due date of filing return as prescribed. Further, the assessee has also filed the audit report in form 10B dated 12.1.2018 belatedly on 18.1.2018. We also cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee has been granted registration u./s 12A of the Act by the ld. CIT, Karnataka

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

11, has committed any specified violation as defined in Explanation\n2 to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or\nthe Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, he shall-\n(a) send a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to\nwithdraw the approval or registration, as the case

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 12AB(4) issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of the registration as under :- ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 22 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 23 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 24 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 26 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

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

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order