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

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 in section 142A shall

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

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

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 in section 142A shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Section 69B of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the\norder of CIT(A) deleting the addition and this issue of the Revenue's appeal is\ndismissed.\n10.\nIn the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n6.3 Considering the facts and the decision in the case of Solitaire\nFabrics Pvt Ltd. v/s Department Of Income Tax it is evident that

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

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B in hands of the assessee för A.Y. 2014-15. 3.3 Accordingly, addition was made in the hands of present assessee at Rs.21.82 lakhs in the assessment year 2014-15. Against this assessee carried appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the said JDA dated 6.12.2023 entered between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B in hands of the assessee för A.Y. 2014-15. 3.3 Accordingly, addition was made in the hands of present assessee at Rs.21.82 lakhs in the assessment year 2014-15. Against this assessee carried appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the said JDA dated 6.12.2023 entered between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B in hands of the assessee för A.Y. 2014-15. 3.3 Accordingly, addition was made in the hands of present assessee at Rs.21.82 lakhs in the assessment year 2014-15. Against this assessee carried appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the said JDA dated 6.12.2023 entered between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B in hands of the assessee för A.Y. 2014-15. 3.3 Accordingly, addition was made in the hands of present assessee at Rs.21.82 lakhs in the assessment year 2014-15. Against this assessee carried appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the said JDA dated 6.12.2023 entered between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

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

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

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

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

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

69B of the Act for these two Assessment Years is unwarranted and unjustified. In support of the ground, the learned AR has put forth the following written submissions: ITA Nos.771 to 776/Bang/2012 ITA Nos.818 to 822/Bang/2012 Page 27 of 58 “8. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY - AJIT KUMAR RAI [AY 2003-04 & 2004-05]: [a] The additions made on this count

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

69B of the Act for these two Assessment Years is unwarranted and unjustified. In support of the ground, the learned AR has put forth the following written submissions: ITA Nos.771 to 776/Bang/2012 ITA Nos.818 to 822/Bang/2012 Page 27 of 58 “8. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY - AJIT KUMAR RAI [AY 2003-04 & 2004-05]: [a] The additions made on this count