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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 115BBE of Income tax Act. He submitted that there is no case for addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act and he prayed that the same may be deleted. 13.3. The ld. D.R. submitted that no explanation whatsoever was given other than filing the list of cheques credited to his various bank accounts. The assessee

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 115BBE of Income tax Act. He submitted that there is no case for addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act and he prayed that the same may be deleted. 13.3. The ld. D.R. submitted that no explanation whatsoever was given other than filing the list of cheques credited to his various bank accounts. The assessee

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

4 lakhs has been received from Roshan Shameer and this amount was towards the instalment of flat booked by him in Creek Galaxy, Pumpwell and also Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel stated that this amount has been received on behalf of Mr. Ali Kutty of Creek builder. Regarding page 181 he has stated that it is an estimate given to customer

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

4 lakhs has been received from Roshan Shameer and this amount was towards the instalment of flat booked by him in Creek Galaxy, Pumpwell and also Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel stated that this amount has been received on behalf of Mr. Ali Kutty of Creek builder. Regarding page 181 he has stated that it is an estimate given to customer

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

4 lakhs has been received from Roshan Shameer and this amount was towards the instalment of flat booked by him in Creek Galaxy, Pumpwell and also Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel stated that this amount has been received on behalf of Mr. Ali Kutty of Creek builder. Regarding page 181 he has stated that it is an estimate given to customer

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

4 lakhs has been received from Roshan Shameer and this amount was towards the instalment of flat booked by him in Creek Galaxy, Pumpwell and also Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel stated that this amount has been received on behalf of Mr. Ali Kutty of Creek builder. Regarding page 181 he has stated that it is an estimate given to customer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for both the\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

132(4) of\nthe Act on 18.01.2019 and 19.01.2015 and confirmed having given cash loan of\nRs.5 Crores to Mishra Group by him on behalf of M/s. Kalburgi Projects and\nfurther stated that no interest has been paid on the cash loan of Rs.5 Crores.\nFurther, during the course of post search verification of the seized documents by\nthe investigating

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

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

section 153A of the Act completed assessment on 30.12.2018 for both the Assessment Years. 15. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 16. Aggrieved from the above Order, assesseeand Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made

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

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

4)\nBooking does not create any legal right to the apartment.\nPage 10 of 36\n8.8 As per the above cash receipt of Rs. 7 Lakhs on 3/9/2014 it is seen\nthat acknowledgment has been issued by Mr. Alikutty himself.\nInterestingly, it is seen that in the details maintained by Mr. Khaleel\n(A/IK/7 Page 147) for the cash received

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

4) of the Act and additional income\noffered by the assessee in the return filed under section 153A of the Act of\nRs.5,57,76,580/- for the Financial Year 2015-16 and for Assessment Year\n2016-17 disallowed by the AO of Rs.6,78,05,420/-. After considering the\nadditional income declared by the assessee under section 153A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

132(4) of the Act? ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 115 10.6 We place reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Pullangode Rubber Product Co. Vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) (SC), wherein it was held that the admission may be an important piece

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

132(4) of the Act? ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 115 10.6 We place reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Pullangode Rubber Product Co. Vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) (SC), wherein it was held that the admission may be an important piece

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

132(4) of the Act? ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 115 10.6 We place reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Pullangode Rubber Product Co. Vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) (SC), wherein it was held that the admission may be an important piece

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES 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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023