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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

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

section 147 of the Act is set aside. Consequent to setting aside of assessment order, demand notice, recovery notice and show cause notice issued pursuant thereto vide Annexures - F1, F2 and G respectively are also set aside. 9.7 Further, under the similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi Vs. ACIT

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ASHED PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment.” 16. As far as section 292B is concerned, we do not think that the notice issued by the AO u/s. 143(2) of the Act in the present case will fall within any mistake, defect or omission which is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. The requirement

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons to believe were supplied\nand additional information were sought by the AO. The Assessee\ncomplied with the notices issued

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons to believe were supplied\nand additional information were sought by the AO. The Assessee\ncomplied with the notices issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

LATE LODAYA NAVALBAI RAICHAND BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SHARAD R LODAYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

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

292B. Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (supra) has on similar facts held that notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 issued to the deceased assessee after her death is bad in law as the requirement u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s 148 of the Act to non-existing company, it was\nsubstantive illegality and not procedural violation of nature adverted to\nin section 292B of the Act, hence, not curable” by observing as under:\n\"While arriving at such a decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken\nnote of Section 292-B of the Act also, which is apposite

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

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

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