ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

147 r w s 144\nof the Income Tax Act 1961 making an addition of Rs\n92,00,000/- under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961;\n1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\nhas unjustly rejected the appellant's claim that the alleged\nsale was only a transaction of gift between relatives and\nthe initial mistake

GANGADHARAYYA G NARENDRAMATH ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

reassessment cannot be made on the basis of an already existing material available with the revenue authorities even in a case where the return of income Page 2 of 5 is processed under section 143(1). 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, order passed under section143(3) read with section 147

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, they\nremained open.\n27.\nFacts of AY 2018-19 are verbatim except the date of filing of ROI in\npursuance to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Here also the AO has\nnot issued any notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the observations\nmade in appeal

SRI S.R. RAVISHANKAR,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 Shri.S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.80, 1St Main, Between 3Rd & 4Th (Central), Cross, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

147 of the Act is not valid and the original assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act barred by limitation. 5. The next contention of the assessee was that the question whether the property was agricultural land by virtue of its location being beyond the distance from the municipal limits of Bangalore and was therefore not a capital asset

SRI.LAKSHMANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Lakshmana, Vs. Ito, S/O. Late Chikkathimmaiah, Ward – 3(2)(3), Kanminike Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 039. Pan : Apppl 7076 K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2017 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal. We Deem It Appropriate To Take Up For Consideration The Issue With Regard To The Validity Of The Order Of Reassessment Passed In This Case On The Ground That The Ao Has Not Disposed Off The Objections With Regard To Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) & The Action Of The Ao In This Regard Is Allegedly Contrary To The Law Laid Down By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Page 2 Of 7

reassessment passed in this case on the ground that the AO has not disposed off the objections with regard to validity of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and the action of the AO in this regard is allegedly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

u/s. 153C of the Act is upheld and order of the CIT(Appeals) is reversed on this issue.” 18. The provisions of section 153C(1) reads as follows – “153C. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery

SMT. M.H. MAMATHA, L/R OF LATE SRI. M.N. HARINATH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. M. H. Mamatha Legal Heir Of Income Tax Officer, Late Shri. M. N. Harinath, Ward – 3[2][2], No.947, 37Th Cross, Poornaprajna Vs. Bengaluru. Layout, Uttarhalli, Bsk 5Th Stage, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aeipm 2644 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : .08.2020

reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in not appreciating that the order of assessment is bad in law and void- ab-initio as the assessing officer had no reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and the whole exercise

SMT. ARIFA YASMEEN REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MRS. FARHAT ALAM ARA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

reassessment is bad in law and ab initio void since there was no service of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. It was also contended that in absence of service of notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act, no assessment order could have been passed. On merits it was contended that if at all the capital gain

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

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

50C is not applicable to the facts of the case as the land sold is not a capital asset but agricultural land on the facts of the case. d) Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have referred to the valuation officer to determine the full value of consideration as per Section 50 of the Act on the facts

MUNIRAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI ,CHIKKABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s 54F of\nthe Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s.234A and 234B of\nthe Act. The interest levied being erroneous is liable to be deleted on the facts\nand circumstances of the case.\n10. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

reassessment under s. 147 (b) may be made out. Avoidance of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed is not prohibited. A taxpayer may resort to a device to divert the income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations of morality, but on the operation

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are\npartly allowed and ITA No

50C while completing the\nassessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the\nseized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at\nRs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the\nassessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee\nPage

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

reassess in the light of the provision of the section 153C of the Act. 7.3.4 During the course of hearing the Learned AR has relied on the Judgement of the Division Bench of The Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 830 to 834 of 2022 , order dated 22/01/2014, which we have dealt with in detail in the later