ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay), for AY 2014-15, the High\nCourt held that the validity of a notice must be judged on the law\nexisting on the date of issuance of the Section 148 notice. It\nemphasized that \"the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the\nfirst proviso applies because, if a notice under section 148 could

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

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

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the Asst. year 2015-16 on 19/04/2022, however concluded the reassessment proceedings on 17/12/2024 by adding alleged escaped income of Rs.10,12,160

NIRMAL KUMAR (AS LEGAL HEIR/REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE MISHRILAL SHARNICKRAJ),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

160. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reasons of (a) Contract fees/receipt mismatch (b) Sales turnover mismatch (c) Cash deposit (d) Tax credit mismatch. Statutory notices issued on different dates. The AO noted that the contract receipt as per Form 26AS is Rs.2,41,31,247, whereas in the return the assessee has declared Rs.6

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

160/-. The Assessee raised objection for reopening the assessment, which was rejected by the AO. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and was completed under section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 30.12.2019. In the order of assessment, AO made following additions to the return income and raised tax demand of Rs.2

SHRI. VARADARAJAN NARAYAN AIYAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

160 and received Rs.2,12,07,936 from the purchaser after deduction of TDS at 1% as per the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act. Out of the consideration received of Rs.2,12,07,936, Rs.2 crore was received by way of RTGS and balance Rs.12,07,936 was accepted in cash. Taking note of this cash transaction

VASANT PARASMAL MEHATA,VIJAYAPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , VIJAYPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Vasant P Mehata, Ito, Prop Of Mehata Parasmal Giridharilal, Ward – 1, Kaladagi Galli, Bijapur, Vs. Vijayapur. Vijayapura – 586 101. Pan : Acamp6257 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024

sections 147/148 of the Act. In compliance, assessee filed return of income on 13.12.2020 declaring income of Rs.7,06,160/-. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of reassessment

SMT. SUNITH SINGH MURALIDHARA ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

160 (Delhi), on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that there being no incriminating material at all and the seized material not being in the nature of any incriminating material, the issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. SAUDI TELECOM COMPANY, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

reassessment proceedings. Subsequently, the Learned. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, dated December 19, 2017, on the basis of details obtained from the ongoing proceedings under section 201 of the Act in the case of Vodafone. IT(IT)A Nos.2389&2399/Bang/2024 Saudi Telekom Company, Riyadh Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates\nthat the transaction was not complete. Therefore, we hold\nthat the addition of Rs.1,71,13,333/- made by the Ld. AO\nand sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable. The same\nis directed to be deleted.\n(iii) Sunil Kumar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings on ground that notice not\nvalid u/s 148 of the Act which could not be issued against a dead\nperson, SLP filed against the said order was dismissed.”\n7.11\nThe Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Bhupendra Bhikalal\nDesai cited (supra) held as under:\n\"Notice issued under section 153C against dead person is unenforceable

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

160/- for A.Y. 2015-16. 3.2 Subsequently, on verification of the balance sheet by the Ld.AO, it was noticed that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 72,20,000/- towards Church maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

160/- for A.Y. 2015-16. 3.2 Subsequently, on verification of the balance sheet by the Ld.AO, it was noticed that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 72,20,000/- towards Church maintenance fund during A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 60 Lakhs during A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that he had reason to believe that