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

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

207 ITR 55) (Kar.) l) The ld. AR submitted that the learned Assessing Officer ought to have verified the following aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the same as sine qua non for a valid search under section 132 of the Act - i) Whether sanction of warrant has been properly issued by competent authority

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

207 ITR 55) (Kar.) l) The ld. AR submitted that the learned Assessing Officer ought to have verified the following aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the same as sine qua non for a valid search under section 132 of the Act - i) Whether sanction of warrant has been properly issued by competent authority

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

207 ITR 55) (Kar.) l) The ld. AR submitted that the learned Assessing Officer ought to have verified the following aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the same as sine qua non for a valid search under section 132 of the Act - i) Whether sanction of warrant has been properly issued by competent authority

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment can be made. In case of completed assessments on the date of search, the assessment under Section 153A can be made only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of document or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

207 5. The assessee filed petitions for all these assessment years for admission of additional evidences, which were not filed before the lower authorities. It was submitted that out of these additional evidences certain evidences are not available at the time of ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 20 of 89 assessment or at the time

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment on the amount of tax determined in the order passed u/s,153A that exceeds the tax determined in the order passed u/s.143(3) Page 9 of 16 dated 16.12.2010. This is the mandate of the provisions of section 234B[3] of the Act, as it stands for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. While doing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities