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

unexplained investment deposit in HSBC bank account of Rs.2,89,69,406 for both the years. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 64 13. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings by the AO. He observed that the assessee undeniably had an account in HSBC, Geneva

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

147, it is clear that the AO must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, it cannot be said that if there is any investment or bank account it is sufficient to believe that income to that extent escaped assessment because there may be so many sources for making such investment

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

147, it is clear that the AO must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, it cannot be said that if there is any investment or bank account it is sufficient to believe that income to that extent escaped assessment because there may be so many sources for making such investment

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

invested in shares of one such script namely, M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd., and claimed exempted LTCG in respect of the same, the Ld.AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. The Ld.AO thus initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) rws 147

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

invested in shares of one such script namely, M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd., and claimed exempted LTCG in respect of the same, the Ld.AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. The Ld.AO thus initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) rws 147

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S BMM CEMENTS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s C

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Bmm Cements Ltd., Bengaluru. . Respondent Co No.206/Bang/2015 Appellant By : Shri K.V Aarvind, Standing Counsel Respondent By : Shri K.R Pradeep, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 01-2-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-4-2018 O R D E R

147 of the Act and (ii) deleted the protective addition of Rs.56.40 crores made as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. REVENUE’S APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 22/5/2015 for asst. year 2010-11, Revenue has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Legal issues: a. The notice issued U/s 148 of the act is bad in law. b. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the officer issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act, did not possess jurisdiction to issue notice and consequently the entire proceedings

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

147 of the Act on 30.12.2019. In the order of assessment, AO made following additions to the return income and raised tax demand of Rs.2,24,74,149/-: AMOUNT IN Rs. PARTICULARS 1. Opening Land 10,41,500.00 Unexplained investment in property 9,28,000.00 Unexplained investment in property 25,31,500.00 Unexplained investment in property

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment, as the case may be. The 3 types of income are: 1) Income disclosed in the return of income 2) Undisclosed income during the search 3) Any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return and not unearthed during the search. 6.4 According to the Ld. D.R., there is an incriminating material found during the search u/s