SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

4 54 180.41 A.S.Vishnumurthy Adiga 31/8/2006 2525920 2020736 SBI 1298952 505184 84810 DVH 563787/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336395) 5 16 140.92 B.S.Bhaskar 31/8/2006 1973000 1578400 SBI, 1014613 394600 66245 DVH 1350470/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336398) 6 81 337.55 T.K.Shabbir ahmed 25/8/06 4726000 3780830 SBI 2430360 945208 158678.82 DKS 751764/- 24/8/06(р.о.о.336397) 7 20 180.41 S.Kalavathi 25/8/06

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

4 54 180.41 A.S.Vishnumurthy Adiga 31/8/2006 2525920 2020736 SBI 1298952 505184 84810 DVH 563787/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336395) 5 16 140.92 B.S.Bhaskar 31/8/2006 1973000 1578400 SBI, 1014613 394600 66245 DVH 1350470/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336398) 6 81 337.55 T.K.Shabbir ahmed 25/8/06 4726000 3780830 SBI 2430360 945208 158678.82 DKS 751764/- 24/8/06(p.o.o.336397) 7 20 180.41 S.Kalavathi 25/8/06

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 application. It was pointed out by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [AIR 1969 SC 198 : (1969) 1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. SRINIVAS RAO HOSKOTE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A Nos.1154 & 1155/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -2(3)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Shri. Srinivas Rao Hoskote, No.4/7, 3Rd Floor, Sidda Enclave Nehrunagar, 1St Main Road, Seshadripuram Bengaluru 560 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaeph8477J Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Heard On : 31.01.2018 Pronounced On : 21.02.2018 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar:

4 3.10 In this background I hold that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 resorted to by the AO are bad in law and the assessment order passed is therefore cancelled as being void abinitio On account of the above said findings given by the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 04. At the outset the Ld. DR brought

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as well, and best judgment assessment was made under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 29/02/2016 assessing the escaped income under the head capital gains Page 7 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 at Rs.6,55,000/-. Ld.AO, subsequently initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice, and 271F

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Section 292B of the Act and they render the entire\nproceedings null and void.\nPage 58 of 147\n35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to\nany steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to\nthe respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been\nprepared

M/S. EDUCATIONAL CONCEPTS INNOVATORS INTERNATIONAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act. 4. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.” 8. Again, being aggrieved

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made