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. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1-4-2021, were issued under the unamended section 148, due to bona fide mistake in view of the subsequent extension of time by various notifications under the Enabling Act (TOLA, 2020). (II) The notices ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

section 153C as it stood on 1.6.2015, the assessee’s case cannot be reopened u/s. 153C of the Act and on the basis of information gathered through DDIT (Inv)Unit 1(2), Bangalore, the assessment of present assessee could be reopened only u/s. 147/148 of the Act and this is subject to our findings in ground No.3

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 of the Act declaring income of Rs.44,60,860/- as declared in return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which was not e- verified. In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 18.10.2021 was communicated to the assessee for compliance for the Assessment Year under consideration. Further a notice dated 22.02.2022 was issued

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

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

68,81,516/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

68,81,516/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

68,81,516/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with

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

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 (Kol.) (TM), the Hon'ble ITAT ratified the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (l)(c) for concealing income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the revised return, declaring additional income, was submitted not out of voluntary compliance and good faith, but rather as a reaction to the concealment being detected

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

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

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

68,81,516/- Α.Υ. 2010-11 4 Disallowance of Purchases: e) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.45,53,51,501/- being purchases from unregistered dealers under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14,07,03,614/- f) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made

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

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

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

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

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

148 of the Act declaring income of Rs.44,60,860/- as declared in return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which was not e- verified. In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 18.10.2021 was communicated to the assessee for compliance for the Assessment Year under consideration. Further a notice dated 22.02.2022 was issued

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

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

148 of the Act declaring income of Rs.44,60,860/- as declared in return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which was not e- verified. In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 18.10.2021 was communicated to the assessee for compliance for the Assessment Year under consideration. Further a notice dated 22.02.2022 was issued

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 of the Act declaring loss of Rs.2,20,546/-. In this regard, ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 29 questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 24.01.2022 was communicated to the assessee stating that the manual return of income filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year under consideration is not valid and assessee

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 of the Act declaring loss of Rs.2,20,546/-. In this regard, ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 29 questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 24.01.2022 was communicated to the assessee stating that the manual return of income filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year under consideration is not valid and assessee

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 of the Act declaring loss of Rs.2,20,546/-. In this regard, ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 29 questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 24.01.2022 was communicated to the assessee stating that the manual return of income filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year under consideration is not valid and assessee