JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

150 Taxmann.com 171 (Kolkata — Trib), in ITA NO. 6o4/Ko1/2022, dt: 20/04/2023 (Para -9) viii. In view of the above, the appellant prays that your honours hold that the return of income filed for the AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, without payment of taxes was defective and the order of assessment passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

150 Taxmann.com 171 (Kolkata — Trib), in ITA NO. 6o4/Ko1/2022, dt: 20/04/2023 (Para -9) viii. In view of the above, the appellant prays that your honours hold that the return of income filed for the AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, without payment of taxes was defective and the order of assessment passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

150 Taxmann.com 171 (Kolkata — Trib), in ITA NO. 6o4/Ko1/2022, dt: 20/04/2023 (Para -9) viii. In view of the above, the appellant prays that your honours hold that the return of income filed for the AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, without payment of taxes was defective and the order of assessment passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150 taxmann.com\n228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s\n132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or\nimmediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence\nwhere retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later\nconfirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by\nassessee after almost 8 months same

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150 taxmann.com 228 (SC), wherein held that “retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has to be made within reasonable time or immediately after statement of assessee is recorded and hence where retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4) and later confirmed in statement recorded u/s 131 had been made by assessee after almost 8 months same

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

150)\nii. The inventory of stock prepared under section 133A(3)(ii) (pages 151\nto 152);\niii. Statements recorded under sections 131, 131A and 133A(3)(iii) from\nvarious persons (as opposed to statements recorded under section\n132(4) (pages 153 to 175)\niv. The summons issued to the Appellant by the Authorized Officer under\nsection

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the\nRevenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets\ncreated based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years.\nIn the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a\ncontradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle\nthat the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the\nRevenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets\ncreated based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years.\nIn the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a\ncontradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle\nthat the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 7.3 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 16 of 107 7.4 The ld. A.R. relied