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

69B, 69C or 69D of\nthe Act.\n\nxxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking note of the fact that if\nthese amounts were really the income of the appellant, there must\nhave been assets to represent these corresponding incomes which\nought to have been unearthed in the course of search proceedings.\nxxii. The very fact that

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

69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. xxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking note of the fact that if these amounts were really the income of the appellant, there must have been assets to represent these corresponding incomes which ought to have been unearthed in the course of search proceedings. xxii. The very fact that there

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

69B,\n69C or 69D of the Act.\nxxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking note of the fact\nthat if these amounts were really the income of the appellant,\nthere must have been assets to represent these corresponding\nincomes which ought to have been unearthed in the course of\nsearch proceedings. The very fact that there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S MRK GOLD LLP, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

Gains from Business & Profession instead of treating it as "unexplained income u/s 69B of the Act" and to tax at special rates given in section 115B13E of the IT Act." Page 2 of 11 2. Any other grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee

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

capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is\nno evidence on record to show that the consideration over and above, what has\nbeen recorded in the sale deed, has been made by the assessee and in the\nabsencc of the same, no addition of undisclosed investment can be made by\ninvoking the provision of Section 69B

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

69B of the act for property transactions done by appellant relative. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of 16. Rs.43,18,00,000/- under section 69A of the act on based on some dumb notings & loose sheets. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of 17. Rs.28

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days. The Ld.DR explained the reason for the delay in\nfiling the appeal stating that the concerned officer was busy

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

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

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

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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

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

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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

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

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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

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\nassessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income.\nSimilarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nShivakami

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

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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days. The Ld.DR explained the reason for the delay in\nfiling the appeal stating that the concerned officer was busy

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital during the year: On Para 15.2, the learned Assessing Officer has detailed the disallowance of 1,24,17,338/- as under: Date Bank Account details Credit:- Remarks 06.04.2015 ICICI Bank SB 10,00,000.00 This amount is transferred No.055901501971 from NRE A/c to ICICI Bank A/c 26.06.2015 Bharat Co-Operate Bank 15,00,000.00 This amount is transferred A/c.003212100002005

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital during the year: On Para 15.2, the learned Assessing Officer has detailed the disallowance of 1,24,17,338/- as under: Date Bank Account details Credit:- Remarks 06.04.2015 ICICI Bank SB 10,00,000.00 This amount is transferred No.055901501971 from NRE A/c to ICICI Bank A/c 26.06.2015 Bharat Co-Operate Bank 15,00,000.00 This amount is transferred A/c.003212100002005