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

148 has been obtained separately from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. The AO has also communicated copy of the reasons recorded with proper DIN to the assessee which is clear from the remand report submitted by the AO. The AO has made addition u/s. 68

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

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 TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

148(2)", "2(40)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, particularly regarding the grounds of borrowed satisfaction, lack of independent reasons, and whether the addition under Section 68

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on additions made amounting to Rs.28,53,193/- as Long-Term Capital Gains as per section 45 of the Act: 4.1 The learned assessing officer and the learned DRP, were not justified in making and addition of Rs.28,53,193/- as Long- Term Capital gains

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

148 has been obtained separately from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. The AO has also communicated copy of the reasons recorded with proper DIN to the assessee which is clear from the remand report submitted by the AO. The AO has made addition u/s. 68

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 148 of the Act, it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs.50 Crores intended for some illegal payments has been routed through various layers of companies and the assessee is one such conduit in the layering process. As part of the layering process, the assessee had received an amount of Rs.50 Crores from M/s. Walden Properties Investment

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

148 of\nthe Act and in response, assessee filed return of income on 17.01.2022.\nSubsequently, the other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. To\nverify the genuineness of the credit entries appearing in the name of M/s.\nMangal Trading and Clothing LLP, notice under section 142(1) of the Act\nwas issued to the assessee asking for various

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

148 has been obtained separately from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. The AO has also communicated copy of the reasons recorded with proper DIN to the assessee which is clear from the remand report submitted by the AO. The AO has made addition u/s. 68

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

148 has been obtained separately from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. The AO has also communicated copy of the reasons recorded with proper DIN to the assessee which is clear from the remand report submitted by the AO. The AO has made addition u/s. 68

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE 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

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

148 has been obtained separately from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9. The AO has also communicated copy of the reasons recorded with proper DIN to the assessee which is clear from the remand report submitted by the AO. The AO has made addition u/s. 68

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

148 of the Act and in response, assessee filed return of income on 17.01.2022. Subsequently, the other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. To ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 22 verify the genuineness of the credit entries appearing in the name of M/s. Mangal Trading and Clothing LLP, notice under section

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added Rs. 1,25,89,399/- to the income of the assessee and completed the assessment. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had opportunity before three forums - ITO(Inv.), AO and these proceedings — to furnish requisite material to establish

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

148 of the Act, assessee\nfiled return of income on 16.04.2021 declaring loss of RS. 5,74,000/- . Thereafter\nnotice u/s 143(2) was issued & served to the assessee on 28.06.2021 . In this\nregard, questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish\nthe details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act as per the direction passed by the ld. DRP. The AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.12,04,080/- as against total income declared as per return amounting to Rs. 1,91,920/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act vide order dated 17/12/2024

M/S. GITA REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and as a result thereof the appeal fails and dismissed as such

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

148 was opposed to law and accordingly the assessment as made is liable to be cancelled. 3. The conditions precedent being absent, the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding a sum of Rs. 1,43,09,000/- towards alleged suppressed sale of Scarp Without appreciating the submission

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

section 149 of the Act, the AO is competent to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on or before 31.3.2019 and in the case of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 30.3.2019 and it has been issued in time. In view of our above findings, additional ground Nos.1