ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sate of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter". 28. In view of the above, it is submitted that there is absolutely no justification for the ld.AO to bring to tax the short term

NAVUNDA ABDULLA BADRUDDIN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The 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 28/03/2022, 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 Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

153D of the Act dated 19/12/2019 is subject matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], thus as per the Explanation [c] to sub-section [1] of section263 of the Act the powers are restricted to exercise the jurisdiction to the matter which was a subject matter of appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case

MOHAMMED ABDUL NAJEEB,GULBARGA, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer of jurisdiction from Gulbarga regular jurisdiction, without complying to the mandatory requirements of provisions of Section 127 of the Act. In this regard, the appellant places reliance on the following judicial precedents: a) SAHARA HOSPITAL LTD V/S CIT (2012) 211 TAXMANN 299 (BOM) b) AJANTA INDUSTRIES V/S CBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) c) MUKUTLA LALITA

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

M/S. KARTHIK ESTATE,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

153D of the Act, the said order of assessment has been passed after obtaining the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Central Range, Mangaluru and consequently it is not only that the AO has applied his mind, but another superior officer after considering the observations and conclusions arrived at by AO has accorded the approval. Consequently, two officers

SADHU SALIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

153D of the Act had obtained approval of Addl. CIT, Central Range, Mangalore, who has given his approval after considering the observations and conclusion arrived at by the AO. When two Officers have applied their mind, there is no lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry in concluding the assessment proceedings passed

M/S. JANATHA FISH MEAL & OIL PRODUCTS,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

153D of the Act an approval has been sought for passing the order of assessment and having applied their mind and considering the facts the order of assessment has been passed. Hence on the very same issue no action can be taken under Section 263 of the Act as the actions of the Assessing Officer is pursuant to applying

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

153D of the Act, where the two officers had applied their minds and after satisfying it was treated as business income. Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO had not applied his mind. He further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO enquired about the additional income declared and it does not fall under any limb

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

153D of the Act is without application of mind and in mechanical manner is incorrect. The approval has been granted strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that the appeal filed by the assessee may be rejected in the interest of justice and equity.” Assessee's Appeal in ITA No.1106/Bang/2015

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

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER 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. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA 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

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

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

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

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

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