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

u/s 37 r.w.s. 40A(3) of the Act. e. The Assessee wishes to submit that the reasons recorded by the learned AO are merely reasons to suspect and there is no belief that the income has escaped assessment. It is submitted that the provisions of section 147 of the Act require that the AO should have reasons to believe that

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 shall have no over-riding effect on this provision. When the new provisions for assessment or reassessment in case of search under Section 132 of the Act section. Even otherwise we find that the notice under Section 153A(1)(a) was issued on 24.9.2009 wherein the Assessing Officer has given time period for furnishing

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154.” 10. It has been made clear by the Hon’ble High Court that sub-section (2) does not ifso facto empower the AO to apply the method prescribed by Rules straightaway without

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A. 30. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the transaction with UEBF cannot be regarded as SDT, because by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted from the statute and by virtue of omission of clause (i) from the statute, the proceedings already

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to\nsubstantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by\ntreating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the\nassessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In\nresponse to the above, the assessee stated that all purchases

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting when the search was made, the Assessing Officer would be competent

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business of real estate. Return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 18/06/2010 declaring total income of Rs.8,82,13,948/-. Search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of the assessee on 06/01/2009. Consequently, notice u/s 153A

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 to Section 263.of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 states that 'For the purposes of this section, it/s hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order