RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

234 B of the Act in the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act and the order does not indicate the rate, period and on what quantum the interest is levied and thus the computation of interest is not Page 3 of 15 discernable from the order. The additions made by Assessing Officer were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision. As per the settled position of law, the Courts, while interpreting\nmachinery provisions of a taxing statute, must give effect to its manifest\npurpose by construing it in such

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

section 153C is a machinery\nprovision, which has been inserted with the purpose of carrying out the\nassessment of persons other than the searched person under section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision

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

section 153C is a machinery\nprovision, which has been inserted with the purpose of carrying out the\nassessment of persons other than the searched person under section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision

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

section 153C is a machinery\nprovision, which has been inserted with the purpose of carrying out the\nassessment of persons other than the searched person under section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision

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

section to have a retrospective operation, the\ncourts will give it such an operation. In the absence of a retrospective\noperation having been expressly given, the courts may be called upon\nto construe the provisions and answer the question whether the\n\nlegislature had sufficiently expressed that intention giving the statute\nretrospectivity. Four factors are suggested as relevant: (i) general

SRI. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED., ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result Ground no 9 to 14 are allowed and ld AO is directed to delete the addition of undisclosed closing stock

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 for that assessment year. 43. Undeniably, completed/unabated assessments

M/S. EDUCATIONAL CONCEPTS INNOVATORS INTERNATIONAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case.\n\n9.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

234, 235, 236 & 237/Bang/2020 are appeals filed by the assessee relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 against separate order passed by the l. CIT (A) . , Bengaluru, all dated 29-11-2019 of the CIT(Appeals)-11, . Common issues are involved in all these appeals and arises out of identical facts and circumstances. We therefore deem

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

234, 235, 236 & 237/Bang/2020 are appeals filed by the assessee relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 against separate order passed by the l. CIT (A) . , Bengaluru, all dated 29-11-2019 of the CIT(Appeals)-11, . Common issues are involved in all these appeals and arises out of identical facts and circumstances. We therefore deem

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

234, 235, 236 & 237/Bang/2020 are appeals filed by the assessee relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 against separate order passed by the l. CIT (A) . , Bengaluru, all dated 29-11-2019 of the CIT(Appeals)-11, . Common issues are involved in all these appeals and arises out of identical facts and circumstances. We therefore deem

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 2.1. The NFAC, Delhi has given a notice of hearing and result of that notice is as follows: SNo. HEARING NOTICE HEARING REMARKS DATED DATE 1. Notice dated 31. 12.2020 15.01.2021 No compliance 2. Notice dated

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed in excess of returned 34. income on the facts

NARAYANA RAO SUJATHA ,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHAMARAJANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

234 of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied is not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law since the speaking order is not passed against the objection filed in view of the Apex Court decision in GKN Driveshaft • The purported statement relied upon for reopening is factually incorrect • There is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegations • The purported statement is duly retracted twice and same cannot be relied upon • Judicial