SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

153A, or section 153C read with section\n153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section\n132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under\nsection 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:\nProvided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as\nper this section

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed

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

reassessment\nunder section 148 of the Act, material or evidence relatable to the\ndocuments for which the requisition had been sent under section 132A\ncould not be taken into consideration.”\nThe learned Departmental Representative filed copies of warrant of\nauthorization under section 132 of the Act dated 29-10-2004 which\nare issued in the name of K. M. Shah

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity

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

153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall

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

153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall

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

153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall

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

153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall

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

153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

1)(a),(b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption\nof\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of\nthe Act is untenable in law.\niv)\nThe learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid\nsearch is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment\nunder section 153A of the Act on the parity

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

1)(a),(b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption\nof\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of\nthe Act is untenable in law.\n\niv)\nThe learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid\nsearch is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment\nunder section 153A of the Act on the parity

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

1)\n(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable in law.\n\n2.\nThe notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as\nmuch as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer\nproposes to assess

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

b) no refund is due to him. rt is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply_ is an emphatic no. The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section

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

b) no refund is due to him. rt is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply_ is an emphatic no. The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section

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

b) no refund is due to him. rt is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply_ is an emphatic no. The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section

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

b) no refund is due to him. rt is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply_ is an emphatic no. The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section