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

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited financial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Pages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax Authorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence and available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

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

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited\nfinancial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration.\nPages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax\nAuthorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence\nand available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

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

1 to 68 contain the returns of income, computation statements, and audited financial statements pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Pages 139 to 264 consist of VAT returns filed before the appropriate Sales Tax Authorities. Upon perusal, we note that all these documents were in existence and available well before the date of the search conducted under Section

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

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

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 for determination under sub- section (2) before the assessment

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

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 for determination under sub- section (2) before the assessment

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

1) of the Act. 17. In the light of the fact that the assessment had not abated, it is submitted that the addition is unjustified and unsustainable as it is not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the case of Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals

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

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 that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There

M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI INVESTMENTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C vs. section 148 and therefore, this tribunal order has no relevance about this issue raised by the assessee as per Additional Grounds in ITA No. 589/Bang/2020. We reject the additional Grounds of ITA No. 589/Bang/2020. 14. As per the main grounds 1 to 10 of ITA No. 589/Bang/2020, the grievance of the assessee is about addition made

M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI INVESTMENTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

153C vs. section 148 and therefore, this tribunal order has no relevance about this issue raised by the assessee as per Additional Grounds in ITA No. 589/Bang/2020. We reject the additional Grounds of ITA No. 589/Bang/2020. 14. As per the main grounds 1 to 10 of ITA No. 589/Bang/2020, the grievance of the assessee is about addition made

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(a) of the Act dated 21.02.2019 calling upon the Assessee to file a return of income. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 20.07.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.5,18,210/-. The ld. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act making the following additions thus, determining the total

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(a) of the Act dated 21.02.2019 calling upon the Assessee to file a return of income. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 20.07.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.5,18,210/-. The ld. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act making the following additions thus, determining the total

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) the Appellant was subjected to the proceedings in the show cause notice, when there are 6 Explanations are provided u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Ld. AO erred in the penalty order by ignoring the jurisprudence laid by various Courts and CBDT Circulars. 12. The Appellant submits that each of the above

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

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

section 153A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 are hereby initiated in the case of Shri Prakash Talreja for the AYs 2012- 13 to 2018-19.” 6.3 However, the ld. AO has framed the assessment by relying on the notings in the documents marked A/KMD/01 at page