GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gain, it will be STCG as admitted by the assessee and the deduction under Section 54B of the Act cannot be allowed when the land has not been used for atleast two years prior to the sale for agriculture purpose. 18. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We find that there

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections

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

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 56(2)(vi) w.e.f. 1.4.2010 therefore, the said provision is also not applicable for the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Buchar (supra) while dealing an identical issue has held in paras 2 & 3 as under : “ 2. There is categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE vs. MR. SHORFF KRISHNARAJASETTY SATHEESHA, KODAGU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

capital gain of Rs.1,20,57,000 in cash and paid tax thereon with quoting the name of the purchaser 9 ITA No.997/Bang/2022. Sri.Shroff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha. of the property. It was also noted by the Revenue Authorities that Sri.E.Jawahar was maintaining records of his personal transaction in the register which were maintained in the premises of M/s.C.P.Exports, in which

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

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain of Rs.2,53,75,286/-. The A.O. computed disallowance as per Rule 8D. We notice that the manner of computation of disallowance of expenses has been changed completely from AY 2017-18. The AO computed annual average of investments in shares & mutual funds at Rs.140.01 crores and accordingly made disallowance of 1% thereof as per rule 8D which

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

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

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 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