SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as a result of search. As already pointed out, the assessment for the AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are unabated assessments. 4.14 He submitted that the scope of the assessment is only to make additions if any on the basis of the incriminating material found in course of search. Thus, the necessary implication that arises is that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as a result of search. As already pointed out, the assessment for the AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are unabated assessments. 4.14 He submitted that the scope of the assessment is only to make additions if any on the basis of the incriminating material found in course of search. Thus, the necessary implication that arises is that

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as a result of search. As already pointed out, the assessment for the AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are unabated assessments. 4.14 He submitted that the scope of the assessment is only to make additions if any on the basis of the incriminating material found in course of search. Thus, the necessary implication that arises is that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as a result of search. As already pointed out, the assessment for the AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are unabated assessments. 4.14 He submitted that the scope of the assessment is only to make additions if any on the basis of the incriminating material found in course of search. Thus, the necessary implication that arises is that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as a result of search. As already pointed out, the assessment for the AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are unabated assessments. 4.14 He submitted that the scope of the assessment is only to make additions if any on the basis of the incriminating material found in course of search. Thus, the necessary implication that arises is that

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings." ITA Nos. 1169 to 1172/Bang/2015 & CO Nos.220 to 223/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 29 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. DR, besides placing reliance upon the assessment order, has contended that in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu [2011] 14 taxmann.com