AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

4 of 9 11. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 143(1)(a)(i) to (vi) provides for the following adjustments to be made while processing the return electronically:- “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

68,097/- in Chikmagalur District Page 2 of 8 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issue on 24.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring Nil income. Assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

139 taxmann.com 317)\n(SC)\n• Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., [2022] (145 taxmann.com 27) (Gujarat)\n• CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) [2008] (SC)\n• CIT vs creative World Telefilms Ltd.(2011) (333 ITR 100)\n(Bombay)\n• CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (394 ITR 680 ) ( 2018) (\nBombay)\n• ITO vs Anant Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ( 20 taxmann

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

4. Aggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee has filed documents that was filed ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 22 before the AO and after considering the various case laws and submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) allowed appeal of the assessee observing as under

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

68 of the Act.\n20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under\nSection 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled\nposition of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the\nstatement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the\nstatements. There

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

68 of the Act.\n20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under\nSection 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled\nposition of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the\nstatement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the\nstatements. There

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

4. The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May, 2014 relied on the self-same reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgments of the CIT and ITAT as concurrent factual findings, which have not been shown to be perverse and, therefore, dismissed the appeal

BHAVASAR NAMDEV SIMPI SAMAJ SAHAKAR SANGH LTD,DANDELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

68,438/- and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not required to file return of income because of its Page 6 of 8 income below the threshold limit of tax and assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2). We reject this arguments of the ld. AR since the deduction can be claimed under

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of \"relevant assessment year\" and which was\ndefined to mean those years which

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year" and which was\ndefined to mean those years which

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

139(1) of the Act.\nTherefore, the excess income declared in 153A of the Act in the return,\nassessee is eligible for telescoping for other additions s made by the AO\ntowards unexplained expenditures / investments under section 69 of the Act.\nAccordingly, the learned CIT(A) has done good reasoned Order. We do not\nfind any infirmity

SHREE JAGADGURU MOUNESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT KERUR,BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purpose

139(4) or in\nthe notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148,\nthe returns were indeed non-est and could not have been\nacted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they\nwere filed before the completion of the assessment.\n12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement\nof making the claim

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

section 153C is a machinery\nprovision, which has been inserted with the purpose of carrying out the\nassessment of persons other than the searched person under section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision

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

section 153C is a machinery\nprovision, which has been inserted with the purpose of carrying out the\nassessment of persons other than the searched person under section 132 of\nthe Act, 1961. Even, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court\nhas, at paragraph 19.4 recorded that section 153C of the Act is a machinery\nprovision

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts24 necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 25[Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "133A", "132(4)", "153C", "68", "40(a)(ia)", "37(1)", "133(6)", "234A", "234B", "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "144", "151" ], "issues