M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

69A or section 69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained

VISHNU VARDHANA RAM YARA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

section 69A of the Act. Further, it was also observed that the assessee has received interest from ICICI Bank amounting to Rs.10,80,224/- in which TDS

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS or exempted under the Act. Upon retirement, the assessee received gratuity of Rs.7,19,063/- which the assessee claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10) of the Act and also received Commuted pension of Rs.15,25,689/- from the employer i.e. the Central Government which is claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10A) of the Act. The case

MOHAMMAD SHAHID,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

69A r.w Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 3. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO did not apply his mind and provide concrete reasons to conclude that the cash deposited by the Appellant in his bank account is unexplained money. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A. If any other interpretation is placed on this provision, any assessee not required to file books of account would get away scot-free when such assessee is found to have unaccounted money.” 18.5 In view of the above, we hold that unexplained investments can be taxed under section 69B of the Act even in cases where the assessee

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A. If any other interpretation is placed on this provision, any assessee not required to file books of account would get away scot-free when such assessee is found to have unaccounted money.” 18.5 In view of the above, we hold that unexplained investments can be taxed under section 69B of the Act even in cases where the assessee

FAROOQIA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, MYSORE

In the result, accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

Section 69A of the Act.\n(d) The impugned additions of Rs.3,94,38,058/- thus made u/s\n69A of the 'Act' is liable for total deletion as the appellant case\nhas not covered to maintain any books of account nor the\nappellant maintained 'books of account' as prescribed u/s 2(12A)\nof the 'Act'.\n\n7. The grounds craved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

TDS. 3. Assessee firm was incorporated on 1.1.2010 with the main object of construction of residential apartment. During the year it has developed housing projects viz., Elegant Valley at Raj Rajeshwari Nagar and Elegant Esplanade, Bangalore. The ld. AO noted that assessee has sold flats in its various projects such as Elegant Embassy North, Elegant Embassy South, Elegant Esplanade, Elegant

M/S. ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

TDS. 3. Assessee firm was incorporated on 1.1.2010 with the main object of construction of residential apartment. During the year it has developed housing projects viz., Elegant Valley at Raj Rajeshwari Nagar and Elegant Esplanade, Bangalore. The ld. AO noted that assessee has sold flats in its various projects such as Elegant Embassy North, Elegant Embassy South, Elegant Esplanade, Elegant

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out . The Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.1,55,16,,000/- which is also not substantiated. 26. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

MRS. IBRAHIM KALEEL,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS has not been made on these commission payments and hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page

SRI. BEVAHALLI GANGAPPA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,,KOLAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

69A of the Act. Consequently, no expenses were allowed inspite of the two bank accounts being business accounts. The AO did not issue notice under subsection 2 of section 143 and has recorded in that assessment order that no notice under subsection 2 of section 143 is issued due to non-filing of the return of income. The AO raised