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

132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment

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

132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment, if any, relating to the six assessment years referred to in the sub- section pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for\nthe relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section\npending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making\nof requisition under section 132A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for\nthe relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section\npending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making\nof requisition under section 132A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for\nthe relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section\npending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making\nof requisition under section 132A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for\nthe relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section\npending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making\nof requisition under section 132A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for\nthe relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section\npending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making\nof requisition under section 132A

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A

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

132A. He\ngets actual jurisdiction only on issue of notice, which could be issued\nunder section 153A (unlike section 158BC(a) in block assessment)\nwith no necessity for inference of escapement of income or under\nassessment as under section 147. Should it mean that a mere search\nwill enable reassessment

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment for those years. 26.4 Thus, it is inferred that the section 132 of the Act authorizes a search when the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, primarily when the department has reason to believe that the person concerned: • is in possession of undisclosed assets, • is likely to not produce books of account if summoned