M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

reassessing the income filed for the assessment year 2011-12; the assessee made a request for reasons recorded for reopening, which was furnished. The same reads as under: “The assessee is the owner of agricultural lands bearing survey Nos 331/2 Part-P2, P4, survey No.367/2A, 2B, 373/P1 and 373/P2 totally measuring 9 acres 12 guntas, situated at Belavadi Village, Kasaba

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

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

u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act\n1961 had resulted in subjecting a “hypothetical income”\nto tax which is not permissible under law and which\nmandates at only the “real income” can be subjected to\ntaxation under the Income Tax Act 1961.\n4.2.3 In support of our above submission the appellant rely upon\nthe following decisions and the ratios

M/S HOTEL WOODSIDE,MANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

u/s. 148 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I agree with the conclusions of the ld. JM.” 3.3. We note that, Hon’ble Third Member concurred with the view taken by Hon’ble Judicial Member, who observed that, order dated 28/02/2014 passed by Ld.AO under section 143 (3) read with 147 of the Act, without furnishing reasons

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

147 of the Act Page 9 of 35 assessing the capital gain arising of JDA dated 12.05.2004 and adopting his own method of valuation. 14. It was also submitted that the action of AO against Anita (Ind) had formed an opinion that capital gain arising from JDA is assessable in the hands of Mrs. Anita G.(Indl) and concluded

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

53A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to enactment of Section 50-D of the Act which is with effect from 01/04/2013 and consequently, no capital gains was assessable at all from this angle of the matter as well. 10.2 Thirdly and without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the consideration

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

147 of the Act is bad in law, since the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals