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

220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence

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

220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence

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

220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence

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

220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence

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

220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence

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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging the validity

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

220 Page 3 of 12 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Based on the enquiry conducted in the case of M/s. Raichand Pasvir Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Gadag. Based on the information received from the investigation agencies of the department correlating with information available with the department, the case was reopened

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

2)(a) of the Special Act. The aforesaid decision rendered in a different context cannot be extended to the provisions of Sec.37(1) of the Act and hence the aforesaid decision is not of any relevance to the issue in this appeal. In assessee’s case the issue under consideration is the allowability of interest u/s.201(1A) as deduction u/s.37

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

2)(a) of the Special Act. The aforesaid decision rendered in a different context cannot be extended to the provisions of Sec.37(1) of the Act and hence the aforesaid decision is not of any relevance to the issue in this appeal. In assessee’s case the issue under consideration is the allowability of interest u/s.201(1A) as deduction u/s.37

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period. 10.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the manner of computation of interest under section 234B of the Act is inaccurate resulting in computation of interest on interest under section 234B

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period. 10.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the manner of computation of interest under section 234B of the Act is inaccurate resulting in computation of interest on interest under section 234B

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

section\n153A of the Act since no incriminating documents were found for the\nimpugned Assessment Year 2013-14. The documents found and\nmarked as A/KG/10 is only an affidavit filed before the Returning\nOfficer and the very basis for making addition by the AO is\ninformation received from Lokayukta under section 133(6) of the Act\nby the AO. During

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

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.6,05,63,650/-. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 7 of 107 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has given partial relief in respect of addition made on account of profit

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.6,05,63,650/-. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 7 of 107 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has given partial relief in respect of addition made on account of profit

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.6,05,63,650/-. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 7 of 107 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has given partial relief in respect of addition made on account of profit

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment