SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassessment has to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 73 determined afterwards and not at the time of issue of notice u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this technical objection raised by the assessee and the same is rejected. 55. Accordingly, the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s. 153A

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6) of the Act as all the lenders’ names and addresses were provided during the course of assessment proceedings by the appellant and the learned CIT(A) also commented very vaguely that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts and ITA Nos.1656 to 1658/Bang/2024 Page 14 of 32 hence it cannot be considered the same. The learned

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6) of the Act as all the lenders' names and addresses were provided during the course of assessment proceedings by the appellant and the learned CIT(A) also commented vaguely that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts and hence it cannot be considered the same. The learned CIT(A) has also not verified to the lenders

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6) of the Act as all the lenders' names and addresses were provided during the course of assessment proceedings by the appellant and the learned CIT(A) also commented vaguely that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts and hence it cannot be considered the same. The learned CIT(A) has also not verified to the lenders

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

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

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

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

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

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

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

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

6 of 104 of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148

SRI. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED., ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result Ground no 9 to 14 are allowed and ld AO is directed to delete the addition of undisclosed closing stock

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 for that assessment year. 43. Undeniably, completed/unabated assessments

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

reassessment proceedings. 3. Transfer Pricing Grounds: 3.1 The TPO has erred in completing the Transfer Pricing assessment without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant by simply relying on the earlier order passed by the TPO dated January 29, 2013 which itself was quashed by the DRP vide its directions dated November