Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd on 15 March, 2010

Sri Rajesh Kumar, Bangalore vs Acit, Bangalore on 11 January, 2019

7. From the substantial question of law raised before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this appeal filed by the assessee before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as reproduced above, it is seen that in that case, the issue raised was regarding initiation of proceedings and the consequent order passed u/s. 153C of IT Act as to whether the same is valid or not. In the present case, as per the assessment order, it is seen that search u/s. 132 was conducted in the business premises of the company M/s. Anriya Project Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and also in the residential premises of the assessee on 30.09.2005. It is also noted by AO in Para 2 of the assessment order that assessee is the Managing Director of the company which came into existence w.e.f. Assessment Year 2004-05. The AO has also noted in same Para of assessment order that during the course of search, certain incriminating material was found and seized. In Para no. 3, it is noted by AO that after centralization of the case to Central Circle - 1 (2), Bangalore, the AO issued notice u/s. 153A of IT Act on 02.02.2006 requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of that notice and it is also noted that notice was served on 13.02.2006.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Salima Sheriff, Bangalore vs Dcit, Bangalore on 31 July, 2019

5. As per the impugned order, it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in para no. 3.6 of his order that on the scrutiny of the seized documents, the AO has observed that the materials in question were belonging to the present assessee and therefore, the AO was satisfied that action u/s. 153C has to be initiated in the present case. There is no finding given by ld. CIT(A) on this issue as to whether the seized material in question is incriminating in nature or not and whether these seized materials represented any prima facie undisclosed income or not. Hence, we feel it proper to restore back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of present case in the light of this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd. (supra). We also direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order. If it is found that the AO has no jurisdiction u/s. 153C, then nothing further remains to be decided. But if it is found that the AO has valid jurisdiction, then the issue on merit should be decided afresh. We make no comment on any aspect i.e. jurisdictional aspect or merit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata , ... vs M/S. Orissa Metaliks Private Limited , ... on 12 December, 2018

As far as Karnataka High Court is concerned, it has in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd. {supra) followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYs in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata , ... vs M/S. Sursadhana Sponge & Ispat Private ... on 12 December, 2018

As far as Karnataka High Court is concerned, it has in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd. {supra) followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYs in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next