M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

153A in these assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 is justified. This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 56. The next common ground for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 is whether the status of assessee is resident or non-resident. The AO has held that the assessee is a resident on the following grounds:- “Some pages

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 21 of 78 of the Act is valid. The grounds and additional grounds raised in this regard by the assessee are dismissed. A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08: Facts are similar in both A.Ys. We consider the facts in AY 2007-08. On merits, the ground raised by the assessee is that the 13. CIT(Appeals

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 21 of 78 of the Act is valid. The grounds and additional grounds raised in this regard by the assessee are dismissed. A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08: Facts are similar in both A.Ys. We consider the facts in AY 2007-08. On merits, the ground raised by the assessee is that the 13. CIT(Appeals

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed and assessee filed return of income and total declaration was made of Rs.6,68

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed and assessee filed return of income and total declaration was made of Rs.6,68

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed and assessee filed return of income and total declaration was made of Rs.6,68

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an- Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an- Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter

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