LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

68,58,962 after incorporating the TP adjustments as above and making certain disallowances under section 14A and section 37 of the Act. It may be noted that the draft assessment order was passed post the date of condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

68 would apply and section 115BBE will automatically get invoked. Hence the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 12. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. 13. The ld. AR submitted that ground No.1 raised is general in nature and therefore no arguments were advances. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. According to ground No.2

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act is liable to be deleted". 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not explained the sources for the deposit of Rs.31.98 lakhs and the same has been rightly considered as an addition

SHRI B K SHIVAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee for the assessment years from 2008-09 to 2014-15 under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri O.P.Meena

68 and unexplained deposits, capital gains, business income and agricultural income and other additions, made by the AO while finalizing assessment order under section 153A/153D read with section 144

SHRI B K SHIVAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee for the assessment years from 2008-09 to 2014-15 under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri O.P.Meena

68 and unexplained deposits, capital gains, business income and agricultural income and other additions, made by the AO while finalizing assessment order under section 153A/153D read with section 144

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

144 of the Act Assessee was issued notice on 25.09.2020 udner section 142(1) of the Act to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the year, details of bank accounts, name / addressand PAN of the directors and partners, copy of statement of incomee .Further notice dated 18.10.2021 was issued asking to file the details

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144 was passed for assessment year 2020- 21 on 13.09.2022 by disallowing the claim of deduction under section 8OP of the Act of Rs.36,03,000/- & by making addition under section 68

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of an amount of ₹56,07,00,000, being the share premium arising on allotment of 9,403 Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) during the year. These CCDs were allotted in Assessment Year 2021-22, and the entire consideration was duly received through normal banking channels in that year

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144 read with section 153D of the Act was passed on 30.3.2022 for AY 2018–19 against which the assessee preferred an ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 40 appeal before the CIT-A which was decided on 20/11/2023. When Order was received by the assessee, she immediately contacted the counsel and deputed one of her staff

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144 read with section 153D of the Act was passed on 30.3.2022 for AY 2018–19 against which the assessee preferred an ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 40 appeal before the CIT-A which was decided on 20/11/2023. When Order was received by the assessee, she immediately contacted the counsel and deputed one of her staff

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144 read with section 153D of the Act was passed on 30.3.2022 for AY 2018–19 against which the assessee preferred an ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 40 appeal before the CIT-A which was decided on 20/11/2023. When Order was received by the assessee, she immediately contacted the counsel and deputed one of her staff