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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n87\nAgreement to sale\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement\n1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name\nAgreement date\nSale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement 1st Party Name\nZaheer Khan (Dspired)\nShahina Begum\n85\n333.55 Sikandara Khan\n3/10/06(разло.105290)\n3/10/2006\n4726038 376080 HDFC KG.ROAD\n2430360\n945208\n156800

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

80%\npayment\n& date |\n| 2727196 |\n| 1851828 |\n| 3360000 |\n\n| P.O.amount |\n| 737227/-\n19-1-07(p.o.no.006467)\nHDFC. K.G.Road\n661452/-\n11/1/07 (ch.no244324)\nSBI, kppl A/c.\n1014203/-\n7/2/07 (ch. 229152)\nSBI |\n| Premium |\n| 1989969 |\n\n| Balance at\nthe time of\nReg..\n| 681799 |\n\n| Stamp\nduty |\n| 86624 |\n| In the\nname\nof\nDKS

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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nappended below.\n\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement 1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name Agreement date Sale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance at\nthe

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

80% payment, premium etc. The above said page numbers.\n13 to 16 of A-2/DJPL/4 and 15of A/DJPL/10 are scanned and\n\nPage 7 of 77\nappended below.\n\nAgreement to sale\nSHREE\nS.No Shop No\nMeasurement\n1st Party Name\n2nd Party Name\nAgreement date\nSale Price\n80%\npayment &\ndate\nP.Oamount\nPremium\nBalance at\nthe time of\nReg..\nStamp

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.

u/s 148 of the Act, the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per this section 147 of the Act if the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could reopen the assessment. The term “has reason to believe” is wider enough to cover various circumstances

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.

u/s 148 of the Act, the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per this section 147 of the Act if the AO “has reason to believe” that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he could reopen the assessment. The term “has reason to believe” is wider enough to cover various circumstances

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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

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

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80,490 1,85,48,012 The AO made estimation on the reason that during the survey u/s. 133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80,490 1,85,48,012 The AO made estimation on the reason that during the survey u/s. 133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80,490 1,85,48,012 The AO made estimation on the reason that during the survey u/s. 133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80,490 1,85,48,012 The AO made estimation on the reason that during the survey u/s. 133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80,490 1,85,48,012 The AO made estimation on the reason that during the survey u/s. 133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of the act did not exist or the same having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled. 2. The Appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of the act did not exist or the same having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled. 2. The Appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of the act did not exist or the same having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled. 2. The Appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80. 4.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing officer under section 153 A of the Act is not valid in law and without assumption of proper and valid jurisdiction. The said notice was issued pursuant to search action conducted which is ultra vires the provisions of section