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

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section

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

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section

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

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

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.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceedings. The judgment in the case of Alamelu Veerappan (supra) provides that notice issued to the legal representatives beyond the period of limitation prescribed is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law. The judgment in the case of Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman Jadagadder Pakkerappa, Shikaripura Page 16 of 20 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

reassessment proceedings. The judgment in the case of Alamelu Veerappan (supra) provides that notice issued to the legal representatives beyond the period of limitation prescribed is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in law. The judgment in the case of Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi) is also on the same lines. In addition

SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub-section (1) of section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be meaningful one and not a farce. Notice issued

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

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. 7. Clause p) of this Para reproduced above specifically states that Notice u/s 274 of I T Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271 (1) (c ) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and clause q) specifically states

SMT. REKHA GANESH,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), DAVANGERE

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

section 132 of the Act was also carried at the\nassessee family dated 27-06-2016 even before the search/survey carried\nat the impugned jewellary store dated 14-1-2017 and nothing\nincriminating was found in relation to the investment made in jewellaries\nby the assessee and her family as alleged by the Revenue. If assessee\nhas made such unaccounted

GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard

M/S. GMR KAMALAGA ENERGY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR KAMALNGA ENERGY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard

GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard

GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassess the total income of the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that a completed assessment cannot be re-examined / reviewed under section 153A where no incriminating material / or undisclosed income is found in course of search assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering that having regard