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

purchase of non-agricultural property measuring of 10 cents at Kottekar Village, Bangalore entered with Smt. Gulzara Banu. As per agreement, total consideration was Rs.20 lakhs and the assessee has paid Rs.5 lakhs on the date of agreement. The assessee has confirmed the payment vide statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and also statement recorded

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

purchase of non-agricultural property measuring of 10 cents at Kottekar Village, Bangalore entered with Smt. Gulzara Banu. As per agreement, total consideration was Rs.20 lakhs and the assessee has paid Rs.5 lakhs on the date of agreement. The assessee has confirmed the payment vide statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and also statement recorded

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

purchase of non-agricultural property measuring of 10 cents at Kottekar Village, Bangalore entered with Smt. Gulzara Banu. As per agreement, total consideration was Rs.20 lakhs and the assessee has paid Rs.5 lakhs on the date of agreement. The assessee has confirmed the payment vide statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and also statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

bogus. Further, the Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the VAT return filed by the assessee before the Appropriate Authorities have been rejected by the Authorities. It is also a fact that the assessee is having only one source of income which is also not in dispute. Further the purchase of goods from which

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHET ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

purchase registers, copy of the VAT returns and bank statements were also produced. The details of the agricultural income was also submitted. 4. The assessee was asked to explain the cash deposits and credit made in the bank account during the financial year 2016 – 17. The ld. AO noted Page 3 of 16 that the assessee has 6 bank accounts

M P SWARNAMAHAL ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

bogus cash sales but the stock out has not been doubted VAT return was also filed. The demonetization happened on 08.11.2016 midnight and effective from 09.11.2016. The sales shown in its books of accounts are prior Page 14 of 15 to the demonetization period. We also examined the cash book journal and sales register but we did not note

SUHAS RAMESH RAO RANGADHOL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, we direct the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year :2017-18 Sri Suhas Ramesh Rao Rangadhol, Seetharama Sadana, Beside Adhichunchanagiri The Income Tax Officer, Samudaya Bhavana, Ward-4, Vs. Sharavathi Nagar,Shivamogga, Shimoga. Karnataka – 577 201. Pan: Agopr8445C Appellant Respondent

bogus, there is no reason to believe that the amount deposited by the Assessee which is duly disclosed in the books of the account of the Assessee as sales and as well as bank deposit is unaccounted income of the Assessee. 15. Accordingly, we find that lower authorities have confirmed the addition of Rs. 33,20,000/- incorrectly. Accordingly

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

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

bogus; they consistently sought time to verify records before answering. The prolonged search was only to extract a pre-decided disclosure, not based on facts or materials. 14. In all, the total additions that were taken in the statement u/s 132 is as below which were across FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016- 17: RETURN FILED AFTER SEARCH

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

bogus; they consistently sought time to verify\nrecords before answering. The prolonged search was only to extract a\npre-decided disclosure, not based on facts or materials.\n14. In all, the total additions that were taken in the statement u/s\n132 is as below which were across FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-\n17:\n\nSI No.\nIssues