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.

dividend U/s 2(22)(e) which had escaped assessment. ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 9 of 78 (e) To justify action U/s 147 travel beyond the reasons recorded U/s 148(2) is not permissible. The mere opinion of the Assistant (f) Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), that there should be necessary

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, C.I.T. (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) also will not survive. The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is allowed in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.1357/Bang/2018 14. We will now take up the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised 19 grounds including the legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) also will not survive. The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is allowed in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.1357/Bang/2018 14. We will now take up the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised 19 grounds including the legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 8. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

147 of the Act, and not based on an independent opinion formed by the Ld. PCIT, pursuant to his examination of records. 2.3. The Ld. PCIT erred in concluding that the Assessment Order for the Impugned AY is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the material on record and the submissions made by the Appellant

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend of Rs.56,34,559/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015 accepting the return of income. Page 7 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 2.2 Subsequently based on the information gathered by the Directorate of Income tax (Investigation), Kolkata, it was noticed that, the scrips of certain

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend of Rs.56,34,559/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015 accepting the return of income. Page 7 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 2.2 Subsequently based on the information gathered by the Directorate of Income tax (Investigation), Kolkata, it was noticed that, the scrips of certain

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) cannot be made in the reassessment as there was no incriminating material the assessees. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that Section 153A permits assessment or reassessment of the total income and it is open to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess any income during the course

NITESH SHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

u/s 2( 22) (e) of the Act in the hands of such share holder. 11. During appellate proceedings, AR of appellant relied on Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore's decision in the case of Sr. Rajeev Chandrashekar in ITA No 144IBang/2013, AY 2008-09 wherein the Hon'ble Bench by relying on Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend income was received from one group company named M/s Mindtree Limited and the long term capital gain was also earned on sale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier year, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than the amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend income was received from one group company named M/s Mindtree Limited and the long term capital gain was also earned on sale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier year, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than the amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend income was received from one group company named M/s Mindtree Limited and the long term capital gain was also earned on sale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier year, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than the amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend income was received from one group company named M/s Mindtree Limited and the long term capital gain was also earned on sale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier year, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than the amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

reassessment was held to be bad in law. B.12 The assessee had no intimation or any information and not aware whether M/s. Newedge Realtors Pvt Ltd is a shell company or engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital/share, premium which were used for routing funds through web of bank transactions. The assessee firm has entered