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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

KUMARSWAMY GANGASHARAISH KALLUR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment order is beyond his jurisdiction. The provision of section 44AB of the Act are not applicable to the fictional provisions like section 68, 69

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the "total income" of six assessment years which means the said total income includes income which was returned in the earlier return, the income which was unearthed during search and income which is not the subject matter of aforesaid two income. If the commissioner has come across any income that the assessing authority has not taken note of while

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess the "total income" of six assessment years which means the said total income includes income which was returned in the earlier return, the income which was unearthed during search and income which is not the subject matter of aforesaid two income. If the commissioner has come across any income that the assessing authority has not taken note of while

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, 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

69 pages. 8. Before us, the ld. JCIT-D.R. Sri V. Parithivel, fervently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the AO has not at all resorted to any estimation and in fact the assessee has admitted and declared the said income which is based on the incriminating evidences seized during

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

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

69 of the Act and\nadded into the total income of the assesse, and assessed income at\nRs.4,67,40,302/-.\n7.\nAggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal and\ndetailed written submissions were also submitted. The CIT(A), after\nconsidering the entire written submissions and documents available\nbefore him allowed the appeal of the assessee observing that

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

69 of the act of FDR in Non- Resident External account of the assessee of Rs 2,20,00,000/- deserves to be deleted. Accordingly Ground no 4 of the appeal is allowed. 23. Similarly, as the ld AO has neither invoked provision of section 56, 50 D or section 55A, in absence of any further inquiry, as the annual

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

69 of the Act. 6.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee after considering various documents filed by assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

69 of the Act. 6.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee after considering various documents filed by assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

69 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Coming to the issue raised by the assessee in additional ground of appeal. 12. The assessee, in the application for the admission of additional grounds, argued that the issue raised is legal in nature and fundamental to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

69 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Coming to the issue raised by the assessee in additional ground of appeal. 12. The assessee, in the application for the admission of additional grounds, argued that the issue raised is legal in nature and fundamental to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

69 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Coming to the issue raised by the assessee in additional ground of appeal. 12. The assessee, in the application for the admission of additional grounds, argued that the issue raised is legal in nature and fundamental to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee