LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 144 rws 147 is bad in law as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment during regular assessment proceedings regarding capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 144 rws 147 is bad in law as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment during regular assessment proceedings regarding capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 144 rws 147 is bad in law as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment during regular assessment proceedings regarding capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

147 of the Act Page 9 of 35 assessing the capital gain arising of JDA dated 12.05.2004 and adopting his own method of valuation. 14. It was also submitted that the action of AO against Anita (Ind) had formed an opinion that capital gain arising from JDA is assessable in the hands of Mrs. Anita G.(Indl) and concluded

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

capital gains on sale of flats from AY 2013-14 to 2017-18 and this fact has been brought to the notice of AO during the proceedings u/s. 153C. The ld. AR also & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 27 submitted that the assessment of AY 2010-11 is unabated since the time limit for issue of notice u/s

VENKATARAMA RAJU N,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is set aside for

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavansri Venkatarama Raju N, Earlier No.11/51, 7Th Main, 9Th Cross, Rk Layout, Padmanabha Nagar, B’Lore-70. Now : No.82, Classic Orchards, Behind Meenakshi Temple, Phase 1, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 076. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hn Khincha, Ca Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 31-8-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 8-9-2016 O R D E R

Reassessment u/s 147 valid, since AO found out that capital gains arising out of JDA entered during the eyar at a later

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by issuing notices u/s. 148 of the Act. Accordingly, reassessments were framed in which the AO determined the long term capital gain

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

gains taking into consideration the\nsubmissions made. Hence, it is not correct to say that the capital\ngain re calculation was based on materials / documentary\nevidences submitted during the re-opening procedure U/s 143(3)\nr.w.s.147.\n(B).\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji however has erred in not observing\nthe fact that the assessee company has not furnished

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material