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.

u/s 147 of the Act. The General Ledger report for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 pertaining to M/s. GIPLon which the case of the AO rests, does not give any information about the particular amount of loan that was advanced to the Assessee, including the reason and commercial rationale behind such transaction. The above contention of the appellant finds support

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate of Rs. 40.26 is adopted. the conversion rate of dollar

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate of Rs. 40.26 is adopted. the conversion rate of dollar

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

129 dated 30.06.2015 was also served calling for various details from the assessee. The assessee had sold the plot at shop enclave on 30.05.2012 resulting in capital gain of Rs.1,99,15,242. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54F as the assessee has invested the entire consideration received from the sale of asset in a residential house property

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

reassessment proceedings are based on material seized during search in terms of provisions of section 132 at third party place. ITA No.1780 to 1785-B-17 & CO 27 to 32-B-2018 Page 13 of 22 2. The AO ought to have proceeded in terms of section 153C whenever material seized u/s 132 at third party place is utilised

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

reassessment proceedings are based on material seized during search in terms of provisions of section 132 at third party place. ITA No.1780 to 1785-B-17 & CO 27 to 32-B-2018 Page 13 of 22 2. The AO ought to have proceeded in terms of section 153C whenever material seized u/s 132 at third party place is utilised

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

reassessment proceedings are based on material seized during search in terms of provisions of section 132 at third party place. ITA No.1780 to 1785-B-17 & CO 27 to 32-B-2018 Page 13 of 22 2. The AO ought to have proceeded in terms of section 153C whenever material seized u/s 132 at third party place is utilised

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

reassessment proceedings are based on material seized during search in terms of provisions of section 132 at third party place. ITA No.1780 to 1785-B-17 & CO 27 to 32-B-2018 Page 13 of 22 2. The AO ought to have proceeded in terms of section 153C whenever material seized u/s 132 at third party place is utilised

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

reassessment proceedings are based on material seized during search in terms of provisions of section 132 at third party place. ITA No.1780 to 1785-B-17 & CO 27 to 32-B-2018 Page 13 of 22 2. The AO ought to have proceeded in terms of section 153C whenever material seized u/s 132 at third party place is utilised

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

129 dated 8.8.2016 of the Act has been issued to the assessee posting the case for hearing on 29/08/2016. The assessee has not responded to the notice. Page 5 of 24 Since the assessment was getting time barred a letter dated 21/11/2016 giving a final opportunity, was issued posting the case for hearing on 28/11/2016

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

129 and hence, the notice dated 14-12-2018 issued by him is also held to be invalid. The invalid notices so issued by the respondents vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings initiated against the appellant. Admittedly, no notice under section 148 was issued by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, for reassessment of the return of income

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 147 of the Act are not valid for taking up the case for reassessment. Without prejudice to the merits of the case, it was submitted that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is without authority of law and jurisdiction. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:- SI.No. Particulars Reopening of Assessment without any new material

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

147 and 148 provide for the re- opening of assessments and re- assessment of income in cases where the Assessing Officer has ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 38 of 107 reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. It is trite to state that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should be based on tangible materials

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

147 and 148 provide for the re- opening of assessments and re- assessment of income in cases where the Assessing Officer has ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 38 of 107 reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. It is trite to state that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should be based on tangible materials

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

147 and 148 provide for the re- opening of assessments and re- assessment of income in cases where the Assessing Officer has ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 38 of 107 reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. It is trite to state that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should be based on tangible materials

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. While section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of any proceeding already taken against the assessee “before his death”, Section 159(2)(b) of the Act specifically talks about any proceeding, which could have been taken against the deceased, if he had survived. Thus, it permits such a proceeding which could have

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022