DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

capitation fees, which were not\nrecorded in its regular books of account, and hence, the AO's action of\nmaking additions based on seized materials and corroborated\ndepositions was fully justified. All the grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in this regard were dismissed.\n11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

capitation fees, which were not\nrecorded in its regular books of account, and hence, the AO's action of\nmaking additions based on seized materials and corroborated\ndepositions was fully justified. All the grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in this regard were dismissed.\n11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

capitation fees, which were not\nrecorded in its regular books of account, and hence, the AO's action of\nmaking additions based on seized materials and corroborated\ndepositions was fully justified. All the grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in this regard were dismissed.\n11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

capitation fees, which were not\nrecorded in its regular books of account, and hence, the AO's action of\nmaking additions based on seized materials and corroborated\ndepositions was fully justified. All the grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in this regard were dismissed.\n11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

capitation fees, which were not\nrecorded in its regular books of account, and hence, the AO's action of\nmaking additions based on seized materials and corroborated\ndepositions was fully justified. All the grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in this regard were dismissed.\n11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

capital gain. Therefore, \nthere can be no protective assessment.” \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the entire protective addition \nof Rs.86,95,409/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a \nsubstantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and \nneeds to be deleted. \n\nIn any case

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Capital gain on transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Private Limited Rs. 103,36,94,904/- (Substantive addition) (16) Income from other sources on account of transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Rs. 104,97,55,888/- (Protective addition) 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assesse filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A), which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved

CHANDULAL BANTHIA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gains. According to the ld. CIT(A), this corroborated the case of the Assessing . ITA No.2324 & 2325/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 13 Officer. The denial by the assessee was found to be weak and unconvincing. The addition was therefore confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before

AMIT BANTHIA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gains. According to the ld. CIT(A), this corroborated the case of the Assessing . ITA No.2324 & 2325/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 13 Officer. The denial by the assessee was found to be weak and unconvincing. The addition was therefore confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

292C of the Act in making the addition in as much as though there\nis presumption as to belonging and correctness there is no\npresumption that the content therein indicates the income of the\nassessee.\n\nii. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in attempting to use the declaration\nu/s 132(4) of the Act said to be made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue is that

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

292C of the Act in making the addition in as \nmuch as though there is presumption as to belonging and \ncorrectness there is no presumption that the content therein \nindicates the income of the assessee.\n\nii. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in effectively upholding use \nof the declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

292C of the Act in making the addition in as much as though there is presumption as to belonging and correctness there is no presumption that the content therein indicates the income of the assessee. ii. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in attempting to use the declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act said to be made

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gains is intended\nto tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained\nand what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee\ncannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income.\n5.20 Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nShivakami

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gains is intended\nto tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained\nand what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee\ncannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income.\n5.20 Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nShivakami

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA 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 Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami