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

68 of the Act for Rs.81,00,000/- and assessment was completed on 31/03/2022. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CITA) issued various notices on different dates but the assessee did not respond. Accordingly, the CIT(A) decided the 5 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 issue

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

M P SWARNAMAHAL ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

section 68 of the Act. There was no mistakes were found in the stoack position of the assessee. The VAT returns were also filed by the assessee which is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.146 to 149

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).Therefore, we rejecte the arguments of the learned Counsel rearding initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act. 14. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee has riased issue that the AO has not taken approval before issuance of notice is also wrong . on going through

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment

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

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

TUFFWUD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act as source were not explained and further addition of Rs.6,09,960/- was made u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred to obtain such unexplained cash credit. 5. Against such order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 10.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).Therefore, we rejecte the arguments of the learned Counsel rearding initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act. 27. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee has riased issue that notice was issued to the assessee on 01.04.2021. From the notice issued under section

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).Therefore, we rejecte the arguments of the learned Counsel rearding initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act. 13. Further we noted that in the approval granted there is DIN quoted but in the reason which is annexure no DIN is there, it is not required

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).Therefore, we rejecte the arguments of the learned Counsel rearding initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act. 13. Further we noted that in the approval granted there is DIN quoted but in the reason which is annexure no DIN is there, it is not required

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).Therefore, we rejecte the arguments of the learned Counsel rearding initiation of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act instead of section 153C of the Act. 13. Further we noted that in the approval granted there is DIN quoted but in the reason which is annexure no DIN is there, it is not required

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 has not been fulfilled. The ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Abhisar Buildwell reported in [2023] 149

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 has not been fulfilled. The ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Abhisar Buildwell reported in [2023] 149

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 has not been fulfilled. The ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Abhisar Buildwell reported in [2023] 149