AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

147 r.w.s144C of the Act and ought to have passed the order under section 153C of the Act. ii. Failure to Dispose Objections: The order of reassessment is further bad in law as the learned assessing officer failed to IT(IT)A No.66/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 31 dispose the legal objections raised by the appellant dated 10.11.2021 on the facts

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.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the 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.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the 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.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

SRI RATHAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

253. There appears to be no justification for cutting short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits. [Para 13]  Awaiting the final decision from the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2734/2013 against the decision of Division Bench of this Court in C. Ramaiah Reddy's case (supra) and also in view

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Re-assessment was 18/10/2010 Notice u/s 148 concluded u/s 147 read 2009-10 declaring a loss of with 143(3) dated Rs.1,34,699/- 30/12/2011. Filed in response to Assessments were 19/02/2013 Notice u/s 153A concluded under Section 2010-11 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. Filed in response to Assessments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE vs. M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

147 on 31/10/2012 treating agricultural income as business income computed at Rs.6,15,66,724/- after setting off brought forward loss as claimed by the assessee of Rs.6,15,66,724/-, tax was computed at nil. However, tax liability under the provisions of sec.115JB was computed treating the income claimed as agricultural income as business income and the liability