M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances

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

260 ITR 82 was seized with the issue wherein, the Assessing Officer passed order on the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Act, which was subject to revision under Section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that, the orders are to be revised are orders passed

SANTHOSH DEVI AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

68 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act was rejected. Further, the A.O. held that the unexplained cash credit of the assessee amounting to Rs.20,99,260 is to be brought to tax at the rate of 30% as per section

SNEHLATHA AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

68 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act was rejected. Further, the A.O. held that the unexplained cash credit of the assessee amounting to Rs.20,99,260 is to be brought to tax at the rate of 30% as per section

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

68 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act was rejected. Further, the A.O. held that the unexplained cash credit of the assessee amounting to Rs.20,99,260 is to be brought to tax at the rate of 30% as per section

ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present cases also. The appeals filed by the Appellants-Revenue

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present cases also. The appeals filed by the Appellants-Revenue are liable

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

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

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

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

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

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

260 ITR 80.\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of\nproving that there is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a],\n[b] and [c] of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable in law.\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought

SHIVAKANTAMMA S JOGUR ,KALABURGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , KALABURGI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,260 and passed under Section 143(2) dt.26.12.2016. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 102 (Born) and approved in 26 taxmann.com 253 (SC), the Hon. Bombay High Court has held as under: “Under the mercantile system of accounting, in order to determine the net income of an accounting year, the revenue and other incomes are matched with the cost of resources consumed (expenses). Under the mercantile system of accounting, the matching

CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

260 ITR 102 (Born) and approved in 26 taxmann.com 253 (SC), the Hon. Bombay High Court has held as under: “Under the mercantile system of accounting, in order to determine the net income of an accounting year, the revenue and other incomes are matched with the cost of resources consumed (expenses). Under the mercantile system of accounting, the matching

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

260 ITR 80.\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of\nproving that there is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a],\n[b] and [c] of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable in law.\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

260 ITR 80. iii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned CIT(A) ought