DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed flats. The Assessing Officer treated this

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed flats. The Assessing Officer treated this

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed flats. The Assessing Officer treated this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed flats. The Assessing Officer treated this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed flats. The Assessing Officer treated this

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment on basis of said information was justified. In Eureka Stock and Share Broking Services Ltd. Vs CIT, 82 taxmann.com 10 (SC) it was held that where investigation wing of department had during course of investigation in case of a third party found that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries and bogus bills, and assessee had made sizeable purchases

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

reassess taking into\nconsideration the other material in respect of\ncompleted/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of\ncompleted/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the\nsearch under section 132 or requisition u/s 132A of the Act, 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened\nby the AO in exercise

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

section 131(1A) of the\nAct which is as under:\nQ.62 I am showing you the document seized at your residence\nduring the course of search proceedings u/s.132 of the\nI.T.Act, 1961 which is marked as A/KG/9 dated 15.3.2016 at\nPage No. 3. Please explain the same.\nAns. Yes, I have gone through the same. The names found on\nPage

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

reassess in the light of the provision of the section 153C of the Act. 7.3.4 During the course of hearing the Learned AR has relied on the Judgement of the Division Bench of The Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 830 to 834 of 2022 , order dated 22/01/2014, which we have dealt with in detail in the later

M/S. DR. M NAGARAJU & RENUKA NAGARAJU CHARITABLE TRUST (R),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned AO is not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim donation paid to the various trusts for a sum of Rs. 91,53,000 /- as the application of income u/ s 11 of the Act under the facts

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess the income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that consent cannot confer jurisdiction to the learned Assessing officer to disallow the investments under section 11(5) of the Act and it should have been done in accordance with law on the facts

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment proceedings on this count. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 13. Ground No. 4 relate to the best judgment assessment framed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act. 14. At the outset, we note that, at the time of hearing, the assessee did not make any submission with respect to the aforesaid ground

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

reassessment Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 proceedings and consequently, the assessment order was passed u/s. 147 of the act, cannot be objected at this stage. 3.9 Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on both the assessment years. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed

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

reassessment Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 proceedings and consequently, the assessment order was passed u/s. 147 of the act, cannot be objected at this stage. 3.9 Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on both the assessment years. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in which succession