HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

68 of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer before completing the assessment order under section 143[3] r.w.s 153D

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

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt.14.3.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore dt.14.3.2016 for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds :- 1. “ That the order

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

153D of the Act is bad in law and requires to be vacated. 5. That the authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 68 rws I15BBE(2) of the Act. 6. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

153D of the Act was passed on\n30.3.2022 for AY 2018–19 against which the assessee preferred an\nPage 3 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\nappeal before the CIT-A which was decided on 20/11/2023. When\nOrder was received by the assessee, she immediately contacted the\ncounsel and deputed one of her staff to coordinate with the present\ncounsel

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

153D of the Act presupposes the application of mind by the Additional Commissioner which is not discernible from the order of assessment on the facts of the case. c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner could not have been obtained by the assessing officer as the assessment order was passed

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

153D of the Act, we hold that the assessment orders impugned framed in absence of obtaining prior approval of the Joint Commissioner for the A.Ys. under consideration are invalid as null and void and are quashed accordingly.” Thus it is clear that the issue before the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Ghulamali Somji Vs. ITO (supra) was passing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the Act. 2.1 During the pendency of the assessment proceeding, Shri V.G. Sidhartha died as on 29th July 2019. In the assessment proceedings, several notices and show cause notices etc were issued which were replied by the legal heirs of late Shri V.G. Sidhartha. Finally, the AO came to finalized the assessment order for respective assessment years

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the Act. 2.1 During the pendency of the assessment proceeding, Shri V.G. Sidhartha died as on 29th July 2019. In the assessment proceedings, several notices and show cause notices etc were issued which were replied by the legal heirs of late Shri V.G. Sidhartha. Finally, the AO came to finalized the assessment order for respective assessment years

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the Act. 2.1 During the pendency of the assessment proceeding, Shri V.G. Sidhartha died as on 29th July 2019. In the assessment proceedings, several notices and show cause notices etc were issued which were replied by the legal heirs of late Shri V.G. Sidhartha. Finally, the AO came to finalized the assessment order for respective assessment years

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the Act. 2.1 During the pendency of the assessment proceeding, Shri V.G. Sidhartha died as on 29th July 2019. In the assessment proceedings, several notices and show cause notices etc were issued which were replied by the legal heirs of late Shri V.G. Sidhartha. Finally, the AO came to finalized the assessment order for respective assessment years

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the Act. 2.1 During the pendency of the assessment proceeding, Shri V.G. Sidhartha died as on 29th July 2019. In the assessment proceedings, several notices and show cause notices etc were issued which were replied by the legal heirs of late Shri V.G. Sidhartha. Finally, the AO came to finalized the assessment order for respective assessment years