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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

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

5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions necessary to invoke the provision of section 147 are did not exist and therefore issue of notice u/s 148 was unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4) [2010] 189 TAXMAN 1 (BOM.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “For all these reasons, it is evident that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to form a belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of the substantive provisions of section 147. Explanation (2) to section 147

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4) [2010] 189 TAXMAN 1 (BOM.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “For all these reasons, it is evident that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to form a belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of the substantive provisions of section 147. Explanation (2) to section 147

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

4. Aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), the asssesee field appeal before the ITAT. 5. The ld. AR submitted that, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition of Rs.81,00,000/- by holding that the assessee did not comply any of the notices served

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

4 | 54 | 180.41 | A.S.Vishnumurthy | Adiga |\n| 5 | 16 | 140.92 | B.S.Bhaskar |\n| 6 | 81 | 337.55 | T.K.Shabbir ahmed |\n| 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

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis

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

4) [2010] 189 TAXMAN 1 (BOM.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “For all these reasons, it is evident that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to form a belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of the substantive provisions of section 147. Explanation (2) to section 147

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

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

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

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

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N 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.

4), that there should be necessary verification about the applicability of Sec.2(22)(e) to the assessee in view of certain loans from M/s Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd (GI) could not be the basis for invoking Sec.2(22)(e) and action U/s 147. (g) Assuming without admitting that there was information regarding lending of money by GI to the appellant

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.

4), that there should be necessary verification about the applicability of Sec.2(22)(e) to the assessee in view of certain loans from M/s Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd (GI) could not be the basis for invoking Sec.2(22)(e) and action U/s 147. (g) Assuming without admitting that there was information regarding lending of money by GI to the appellant

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

section 147 of the Act, where the scope of reassessment is limited only to the reasons recorded. 4.9. 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. We do not find any merit in the present proceedings initiated against the order u/s. 147 r.w.s

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings for the year 2003-04, it was found that purchases worth Rs.61.40 lakhs were not supported by sufficient evidence. Purchase of such goods from various suppliers was verified, but it was found that such parties had not supplied the goods as named by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the entire amount of purchase

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

4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. We will first consider the legal ground raised challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The learned AR argued that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 is bad in law as no new material was found to justify the reopening . The learned AR submitted