ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

20 taxmann.com 781, wherein it was held that the\nsearch comes to an end when the search party leaves the premises, and\nProhibitory orders issued under section 132(3) of the Act cannot be\nequated to continuation of search. The learned AR also placed reliance\non various other case laws which are available on record.\n\n8.1.2 On this

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

b) for which he offered no explanation for the source of explanation or the explanation offered by him is unsatisfactory. 100. It is clear from the assessment order that the appellant has not incurred the expenditure. It is RAL which had incurred the expenditure. This is an undisputed fact. The fundamental requirement of S.69C that an assessee should have incurred

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

20 taxmann.com 781, wherein it was held that the\nsearch comes to an end when the search party leaves the premises, and\nProhibitory orders issued under section 132(3) of the Act cannot be\nequated to continuation of search. The learned AR also placed reliance\non various other case laws which are available on record.\n8.1.2 On this reasoning

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2(3), BANGALURU vs. SHRI T.H SURESH BABU, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

68 taxmann.com 223 (Bangalore-Trib.) held that there should be something in the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person to indicate that the searched person had disclaimed the seized documents before reaching a conclusion/satisfaction that the documents do not belong to the searched person but to the other third person. In the 'Satisfaction Note' , the AO doesn