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.

6 of 115 d) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in issuing notice under section 153A of the Act and completing

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.

6 of 115 d) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in issuing notice under section 153A of the Act and completing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “The Act”) for the assessment year ( in short “AY”) 2019-20. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 2 of 17 3. Before leaping straightway to the penalty proceedings, it is very much pertinent here to discuss with regard

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in law and facts by confirming the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer levying a penalty of 50 percent of tax under

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A

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

250 of the Act. 2. In first three appeals, the grounds are common except figures. Hence, we extract the grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No.1163/Bang/2024 as follows: 1. The Order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

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

250 of the Act. 2. In first three appeals, the grounds are common except figures. Hence, we extract the grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No.1163/Bang/2024 as follows: 1. The Order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

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

250 of the Act. 2. In first three appeals, the grounds are common except figures. Hence, we extract the grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No.1163/Bang/2024 as follows: 1. The Order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

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

250 of the Act. 2. In first three appeals, the grounds are common except figures. Hence, we extract the grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No.1163/Bang/2024 as follows: 1. The Order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

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

250 of the Act. 2. In first three appeals, the grounds are common except figures. Hence, we extract the grounds raised by the revenue in ITA No.1163/Bang/2024 as follows: 1. The Order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bangalore Page 2 of 12 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee being an individual had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. Thus, it can be seen that the argument of the appellant of 'change of opinion' is misplaced. It is also argued that reason for reopening the case under section 147/148 are not sufficient. It is well-settled position that the "sufficiency of reason" is not justiciable. It was held in the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewalala Das that

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

6 appeals for the respective Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. The Appellant humbly submits that the additions made in the assessment order were not arising from the seized material. The learned assessing officer has failed to demonstrate that the additions made were arising from the seized material. It is a settled

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

6 appeals for the respective Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. The Appellant humbly submits that the additions made in the assessment order were not arising from the seized material. The learned assessing officer has failed to demonstrate that the additions made were arising from the seized material. It is a settled

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

6 appeals for the respective Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. The Appellant humbly submits that the additions made in the assessment order were not arising from the seized material. The learned assessing officer has failed to demonstrate that the additions made were arising from the seized material. It is a settled