SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

158-BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

158-BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB

M/S. GREENS FARM TECH PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

158  . Page 8 of 14 Labour Charges Paid: ₹6,48,197  Total Expenses: ₹45,69,355  Net Agricultural Income: ₹14,72,695  12.1 Thus, we note that there is variable difference in the value of agricultural income shown and claimed and disallowed by the AO. Further, the voluminous evidence filed is being considered for the first time

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

Section 68 of the 1961 Act, as stated in the assessment order. Indisputably, the Officer gave several opportunities to the appellant/assessee to prove the authenticitp of the entries in question. As a matter of fact, summon notices were issued to the named fifteen creditors, but no evidence/explanation was forthcoming. The finding of fact so recorded by the Officer

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158 Cr. But it is not enquired either by the search party or by the ld. AO. 68. The documents also mentioned details of some flat of Rs 20 crores, there is no whisper in the assessment order, statements about these facts. This part of the documents has not been looked at or enquired by the ld AO. Further

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158 Cr. But it is not enquired either by the search party or by the ld. AO. 68. The documents also mentioned details of some flat of Rs 20 crores, there is no whisper in the assessment order, statements about these facts. This part of the documents has not been looked at or enquired by the ld AO. Further

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158 Cr. But it is not enquired either by the search party or by the ld. AO. 68. The documents also mentioned details of some flat of Rs 20 crores, there is no whisper in the assessment order, statements about these facts. This part of the documents has not been looked at or enquired by the ld AO. Further

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158 Cr. But it is not enquired either by the search party or by the ld. AO. 68. The documents also mentioned details of some flat of Rs 20 crores, there is no whisper in the assessment order, statements about these facts. This part of the documents has not been looked at or enquired by the ld AO. Further

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

68,161/-\nii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable,\nthe year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as\nunder-\nΑ.Υ.\n2015-16\n2016-17\n2017-18\n2018-19\nContract charges as per ledger\n7,05,000/-\n26,36,554/-\n4,29,759/-\n99,000/-\niii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

158 Crore. There is not a\nsingle question on this sum to the assessee and no reference is made by\nthe ld AO also. In fact, ld. AO should have asked the assessee to\nexplain the difference between sum of Rs.92 Cr and Rs.158 Cr. But\nit is not enquired either by the search party

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

158 Crore. There is not a\nsingle question on this sum to the assessee and no reference is made by\nthe ld AO also. In fact, ld. AO should have asked the assessee to\nexplain the difference between sum of Rs.92 Cr and Rs.158 Cr. But\nit is not enquired either by the search party

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. GLOBAL TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

158 Crore. There is not a\nsingle question on this sum to the assessee and no reference is made by\nthe ld AO also. In fact, ld. AO should have asked the assessee to\nexplain the difference between sum of Rs.92 Cr and Rs.158 Cr. But\nit is not enquired either by the search party

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice

SMT. ARWA HARARWALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?” 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

158- BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

158- BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:— "292BB