M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06?.” 29. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000 as sale consideration received towards sale of land to one M/s. Crystal Properties P. Ltd. The AO based on material seized during the course of search noted that

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06?.” 29. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000 as sale consideration received towards sale of land to one M/s. Crystal Properties P. Ltd. The AO based on material seized during the course of search noted that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06?.” 29. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000 as sale consideration received towards sale of land to one M/s. Crystal Properties P. Ltd. The AO based on material seized during the course of search noted that

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06?.” 29. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000 as sale consideration received towards sale of land to one M/s. Crystal Properties P. Ltd. The AO based on material seized during the course of search noted that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06?.” 29. During the year under consideration, the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000 as sale consideration received towards sale of land to one M/s. Crystal Properties P. Ltd. The AO based on material seized during the course of search noted that

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income by merely arithmetically totaling various figures jotted down on such document. 13.19 The seized material which is placed on record shows certain receipt entries and it is very strange to believe that the assessee has authorised any person to write it as it does not contain any attestation from the assessee side being not having any name

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income by merely arithmetically totaling various figures jotted down on such document. 13.19 The seized material which is placed on record shows certain receipt entries and it is very strange to believe that the assessee has authorised any person to write it as it does not contain any attestation from the assessee side being not having any name

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income by merely arithmetically totaling various figures jotted down on such document. 13.19 The seized material which is placed on record shows certain receipt entries and it is very strange to believe that the assessee has authorised any person to write it as it does not contain any attestation from the assessee side being not having any name

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income by merely arithmetically totaling various figures jotted down on such document. 13.19 The seized material which is placed on record shows certain receipt entries and it is very strange to believe that the assessee has authorised any person to write it as it does not contain any attestation from the assessee side being not having any name

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income by merely arithmetically totaling various figures jotted down on such document. 13.19 The seized material which is placed on record shows certain receipt entries and it is very strange to believe that the assessee has authorised any person to write it as it does not contain any attestation from the assessee side being not having any name

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

undisclosed income on\naccount of capital gain on transfer of immovable property to\nspouse. The assessee, deceased now represented through

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

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

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

gains as per the return of income filed u/s.139. Further there are no undisclosed transactions. The appellant had fully accounted and declared all the income including income from capital

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has failed to appreciate the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in treating the entire sale consideration received of Rs 3,72,50,000/-as undisclosed Short Term Capital Gains

HARISH RAMCHANDRA JOSHI(HUF),HUBLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS , HUBLI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain was Page 8 of 10 also to be considered as undisclosed income under IDS, 2016. Naturally the capital

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

capital gains.\n23. The DR submitted that the seized documents had a direct nexus\nwith the total income of the assessee and therefore qualify as\nincriminating material. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in CIT v. SSP Aviation Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 177, it was argued that\nthere is no requirement for the documents

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gain shown in his ITR as his undisclosed income but such undisclosed income in not based on any documents