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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income was earned by the assessee. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 12.4 In case of Romesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal (1969) 2 SCR 461 although Hon’ble Court held that any statement made under ss. 107 and 108 of the Customs Act by a person against whom an enquiry is made by a customs officer is not a statement made

SHRI. KANTHULA RAVISHANKAR,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazkanthula Ravishanker, ‘Ravshan’ No.7, Bruton Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore . Respondent Appellant By : Shri A.C Raju, C.A Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-1-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-1-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 7, Bangalore Dated 30/8/2016 For Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are As Under:- 2.1 The Assessee, Prop. K.K Corporation, Engaged In Business As Selling Agents For M/S Raymonal Ltd., Products For The States Of Ita No.1897/B/16 2

undisclosed TDS, since the assessee has disclosed the income on receipt basis & has claimed TDS only to the extent of the income

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.

income, they are now precluded, on the principle of "approbate and reprobate", from pleading that the income they derived subsequently by realization of the revived debts is not taxable income. The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against

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.

income, they are now precluded, on the principle of "approbate and reprobate", from pleading that the income they derived subsequently by realization of the revived debts is not taxable income. The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against

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.

income, they are now precluded, on the principle of "approbate and reprobate", from pleading that the income they derived subsequently by realization of the revived debts is not taxable income. The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppel; it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

undisclosed income. (g) in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 214/207 Taxman 260 (Delhi), the observations of the court were in light of the fact that incriminating material had been found. (h) In CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia [2012] 211 Taxman 453/24 taxmann.com 98 (Delhi), the court did not express any opinion as to whether Section

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

undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain

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

undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain

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

undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain

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

undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain

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

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

undisclosed income in the hands of SRCand a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Assessee filed detailed written submissions, replied to every objection raised by the AO and after considering entire submissions of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.8,35,45,883/- which is difference amount of income declared during the statement recorded under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

undisclosed income. In that case, the addition made was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court has held that AO was not justified in making the additions. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while adjudicating the issue had taken into account the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case