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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

7-2-07\n1180968\n892068\n84283\nDKS\n27\n181 M.L.Suresh\n254 Zuhor Pasta\nSubramani\nTajurunsa\n2012/2/01\n1390000/ to ist party\nchaus 29146, sbi.7-2-07\n334145/-40 2ml party\n2534181\n21273-45ch.no.229147,sbs.7-2-27\n1143200\n17/2/197\n39626-4\n600000/- to 1st party\n1997011710000/- to 2nd party\n85087\nDKS\nfis\n173.14 Wajhadulla Baig\n27/2/07 (ch.587760)\n27/2/2007\n3722510\n2978008\nHD\n390000/- to Tst party\nSBI

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

7-2-07\n1180968\n892068\n84283 DKS\n27\n181 M.L.Suresh\n254 Zuhor Pasta\nSubramani\nTajurunsa\n2012/2/01\n1390000/ to ist party\nchaus 29146, sbi.7-2-07\n334145/-40 2ml party\n2534181\n21273-45ch.no.229147,sbs.7-2-27\n1143200\n17/2/197\n39626-4\n600000/- to 1st party\n1997011710000/- to 2nd party\n85087 DKS\nfis\n173.14 Wajhadulla Baig\n27/2/07 (ch.587760)\n27/2/2007\n3722510 2978008 HD\n390000/- to Tst party\nSBI

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

7 | 20 | 180.41 | S.Kalavathi |\n\n| Agreement\ndate |\n|---|---|\n| 3/10/2006 |\n| 4/1/2007 |\n| 9/10/2006 |\n| 31/8/2006 |\n| 31/8/2006 |\n| 25/8/06 |\n| 25/8/06 |\n\n| Sale Price |\n| 2309465 |\n| 8000740 |\n| 4828050 |\n| 2525920 |\n| 1973000 |\n| 4726000 |\n| 2525850 |\n\n| 80%\npayment\n& date |\n| 659932/-\n3/10/06(p.o.no.105289)\n1847572

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

7-2-07\n1180968\n892068\n84283 DKS\n27\n181 M.L.Suresh\n254 Zuhor Pasta\nSubramani\nTajurunsa\n2012/2/01\n1390000/ to ist party\nchaus 29146, sbi.7-2-07\n334145/-40 2ml party\n2534181\n21273-45ch.no.229147,sbs.7-2-27\n1143200\n17/2/197\n39626-4\n600000/- to 1st party\n1997011710000/- to 2nd party\n85087 DKS\nfis\n173.14 Wajhadulla Baig\n27/2/07 (ch.587760)\n27/2/2007\n3722510\n2978008 HD\n390000/- to Tst party\nSBI

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

7-2-07\n1180968\n892068\n84283 DKS\n27\n181 M.L.Suresh\n254 Zuhor Pasta\nSubramani\nTajurunsa\n2012/2/01\n1390000/ to ist party\nchaus 29146, sbi.7-2-07\n334145/-40 2ml party\n2534181\n21273-45ch.no.229147,sbs.7-2-27\n1143200\n17/2/197\n39626-4\n600000/- to 1st party\n1997011710000/- to 2nd party\n85087 DKS\n173.14 Wajhadulla Baig\n27/2/07 (ch.587760)\n27/2/2007\n3722510\n2978008\nHD\n2283309\n744502\n81392/DKS\n195.49 Harishkumar\n2300.51

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 148, after formation of belief that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. Therefore he confirmed the reopening of assessment. 8. The assessee also challenged before the CIT(Appeals) that assessment should have been completed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In this case assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 153C which

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act, the scope of verification cannot exceed the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Ld.PCIT in the present facts proceeded to enquire on an issue which is not covered under the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. It would have been different situation if the 263 was initiated against the original assessment

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer

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

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 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

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

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

7 of 14 the very purpose the case was reopened on the basis of reasons recorded. Therefore, the reassessment passed by the AO is suffering from infirmity and it is complete lack of enquiry which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 11. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO after issue of Show cause

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

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