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

153C, and non-compliance renders the proceedings\nvoid ab initio.\n29.\nFurthermore, the appellant was not provided access to the relevant records,\nincluding the approval under Section 153D, despite direction from the Bench.\nThe failure to furnish such material, coupled with the absence of satisfaction and\napproval, demonstrates clear procedural irregularities and violation of statutory\nrequirements, as well

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

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

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

section 153C of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the department in its order in SLP 4659 of 2015, order dated; 04-12-2017 reported in (2018) 89 taxman.com 10 (SC). 22. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Canyon Financial Services Ltd (2017) 84 taxman.com 71 (Delhi) held that

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

153C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

153C", "Section 148", "Section 143(3)", "Section 132", "Section 131", "Section 133A", "Section 69B", "Section 69C", "Section 115BBE"], "issues": "Whether additions made under Section 68

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

153C", "Section 148", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 131", "Section 69B", "Section 115BBE", "Section 69C" ], "issues": "Whether additions made under Section 68

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 292BB is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee and thereafter framing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 292BB is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee and thereafter framing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

153C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act.\n20. However, it is an undisputed fact

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act having not been satisfied in the present case, therefore the assessment is liable to be annulled. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made by the AO is not based on seized material found in the course of search and therefore the addition cannot be sustained. On merits of the additions made

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C of the Act having not been satisfied in the present case, therefore the assessment is liable to be annulled. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made by the AO is not based on seized material found in the course of search and therefore the addition cannot be sustained. On merits of the additions made