MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

seizure in the case of Mr. Sadhu Salian. This being the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in section 153A and 153C, stands satisfied if the notice is responded and the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. In the present case, the assessee participated in the proceedings, assessee cannot be allowed to turn around or raise objections

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

seizure in the office premises of SRC, Bangalore, based on the findings in the office premises of Ananthpur ITA Nos.636, 637/Bang/2025 ITA Nos.768, 769/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 60 office, Shri. Rajagopal and Shri Surendra Babu were confronted and they were asked to produce list of bogus sub contractors. In their statement on 25.11.2016 under section

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

search cases should be made with the prior approval of\nsuperior authority. As such, the higher authority should apply their mind on the\nmaterials gathered during search and other relevant circumstances based on\nwhich the officer is making the assessment. Furthermore, the AO should frame\nthe assessment after due application of mind after evaluating the seized\nmaterials. Thus, the superior

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

search and other relevant circumstances based on\nwhich the officer is making the assessment. Furthermore, the AO should frame\nthe assessment after due application of mind after evaluating the seized\nmaterials. Thus, the superior authority has to approve the Assessment order.\nThe object of entrusting the duty of Approval of assessment in search cases is\nthat the Joint CIT, with

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of undisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search. However, these statements do constitute information, and if they relate

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of undisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search. However, these statements do constitute information, and if they relate

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of undisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search. However, these statements do constitute information, and if they relate

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of undisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search. However, these statements do constitute information, and if they relate

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

TDS. Based on the chequebooks found in the premises of the\nAppellant at Anantapur the visiting search team started suspecting that\nthe payments to sub-contractors were not genuine. Thereafter, the entire\ncase came to be built in the search team on this surmise.\n5. It was explained by the partners in the very first instance that\nthese cheque books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

search and seizure u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act stated that the assessee company ought to have accounted for the interest payable. C.O. No. 42/Bang/2019 4.2 Further, the Assessing Officer observed that on 05/05/2015, M/s.Arduino Holdings Limited, which is a Cyprus based company had transferred the CCDs to M/s. NLS Mauritius LLC, a Mauritius based company for a total consideration

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of undisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search. However, these statements do constitute information, and if they relate

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

seizure operations would not empower the\nAssessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because\nany admission was made by the assessee during search\noperation.\"\n[Emphasis supplied]\n23. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate computing of\nundisclosed income solely on the basis of statements made during a search.\nHowever, these statements do constitute information, and if they

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

search of Jain group of companies belonged to the respondent-assessee group and the same is incriminating, vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. 36. Accordingly, we find no reason to intermeddle with the order of the ITAT which has rightly set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions made therein. 37. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

search of Jain group of companies belonged to the respondent-assessee group and the same is incriminating, vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. 36. Accordingly, we find no reason to intermeddle with the order of the ITAT which has rightly set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions made therein. 37. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

search of Jain group of companies belonged to the respondent-assessee group and the same is incriminating, vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. 36. Accordingly, we find no reason to intermeddle with the order of the ITAT which has rightly set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions made therein. 37. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

search of Jain group of companies belonged to the respondent-assessee group and the same is incriminating, vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. 36. Accordingly, we find no reason to intermeddle with the order of the ITAT which has rightly set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions made therein. 37. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis