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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

80 (Rajasthan) held that the Appellant is rightly\nentitled to benefit of immunity as per the provisions of section\n270AA of Income Tax Act.\n8) For the above and any other grounds that may be advanced at\nthe time of hearing, the Appellant prays Honourable ITAT to delete the\npenalty levied.\"\nAny consequential relief, to which the Appellant

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess income of such “other person” in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the ld. AO being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1, Mangalore having recorded the satisfaction for proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after duly recording the satisfaction as follows: “A search was initiated under section

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess income of such “other person” in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the ld. AO being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1, Mangalore having recorded the satisfaction for proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after duly recording the satisfaction as follows: “A search was initiated under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

80 pages containing various documents filed/produced before the Authorities below. 7. Before us, the ld. CIT-D.R. Ms. Neera Malhotra fervently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly interpreted sub section (9) of section 270A of the Act in holding that 270A(9) of the Act suggests a willful negligence or a misreporting of income which was made

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

80,375/- from business and profession and long term capital gains of Rs.20,68,361/- from sale of immovable property. Thereafter, the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 28.2.2023 on a total income of Rs.20,92,490/-. The AO on or before the completion of assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act also

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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n87\nAgreement to sale\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement\n1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name\nAgreement date\nSale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement 1st Party Name\nZaheer Khan (Dspired)\nShahina Begum\n85\n333.55 Sikandara Khan\n3/10/06(разло.105290)\n3/10/2006\n4726038 376080 HDFC KG.ROAD\n2430360\n945208\n156800

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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n\nAgreement to sale\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement\n1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name\nAgreement date\nSale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance at\nthe time of\nReg..\nStamp

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nappended below.\n\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement 1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name Agreement date Sale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance at\nthe

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

80%\npayment\n& date |\n| 2727196 |\n| 1851828 |\n| 3360000 |\n\n| P.O.amount |\n| 737227/-\n19-1-07(p.o.no.006467)\nHDFC. K.G.Road\n661452/-\n11/1/07 (ch.no244324)\nSBI, kppl A/c.\n1014203/-\n7/2/07 (ch. 229152)\nSBI |\n| Premium |\n| 1989969 |\n\n| Balance at\nthe time of\nReg..\n| 681799 |\n\n| Stamp\nduty |\n| 86624 |\n| In the\nname\nof\nDKS

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

80.\n\n2.\nThe notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as\nmuch as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer\nproposes to assess or reassess