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

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

House Property’ and not ‘Business Income’ as declared by the assessee; and also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the issue of initiating assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A)-I, B’lore

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

House Property’ and not ‘Business Income’ as declared by the assessee; and also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the issue of initiating assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A)-I, B’lore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 6. Further, the CIT(A) dealt on the findings of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order dated 19/10/2015 and has extracted the points at para.14 which read as under: “14. Now, I take up the main issue regarding matters with respect of the Dummy Tally. On perusal of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 6. Further, the CIT(A) dealt on the findings of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order dated 19/10/2015 and has extracted the points at para.14 which read as under: “14. Now, I take up the main issue regarding matters with respect of the Dummy Tally. On perusal of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 6. Further, the CIT(A) dealt on the findings of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order dated 19/10/2015 and has extracted the points at para.14 which read as under: “14. Now, I take up the main issue regarding matters with respect of the Dummy Tally. On perusal of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 6. Further, the CIT(A) dealt on the findings of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order dated 19/10/2015 and has extracted the points at para.14 which read as under: “14. Now, I take up the main issue regarding matters with respect of the Dummy Tally. On perusal of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Act. 6. Further, the CIT(A) dealt on the findings of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order dated 19/10/2015 and has extracted the points at para.14 which read as under: “14. Now, I take up the main issue regarding matters with respect of the Dummy Tally. On perusal of the order

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Property, Bangalore. The capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax. On the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the seized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Property, Bangalore. The capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax. On the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the seized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

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

House property of Rs.l,48,246/-, Income from Profession of Rs.12,88,972/-, Income from Capital gains of Rs.3,14,480/- and Income from ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 17 of 50 Other sources of Rs.50,27,201/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.16,27,57,903/-. During the regular assessment proceedings the bank

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

House property of Rs.l,48,246/-, Income from Profession of Rs.12,88,972/-, Income from Capital gains of Rs.3,14,480/- and Income from ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 17 of 50 Other sources of Rs.50,27,201/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.16,27,57,903/-. During the regular assessment proceedings the bank

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

House property of Rs.l,48,246/-, Income from Profession of Rs.12,88,972/-, Income from Capital gains of Rs.3,14,480/- and Income from ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 17 of 50 Other sources of Rs.50,27,201/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.16,27,57,903/-. During the regular assessment proceedings the bank

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

House property of Rs.l,48,246/-, Income from Profession of Rs.12,88,972/-, Income from Capital gains of Rs.3,14,480/- and Income from ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 17 of 50 Other sources of Rs.50,27,201/-. The assessee also earned exempt Long term capital gains of Rs.16,27,57,903/-. During the regular assessment proceedings the bank

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

147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act is bad in law, as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment and there is no new or fresh information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. 8. That the entire reassessment proceedings violates the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 259 1TR 19 for 148 proceedings

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

147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act is bad in law, as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment and there is no new or fresh information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. 8. That the entire reassessment proceedings violates the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 259 1TR 19 for 148 proceedings

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

house property, Capital Gains and other sources. 3. Based on the information through AIMS (Actionable Information Monitoring System), penny stock issue was examined based on the return of income. In the invalid return, the assessee had declared Short Term Capital Gains u/s. 111A of the Act. The STCG declared was treated as undeclared and unassessed and treated as escapement