MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

unexplained investment. 34. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but did not find favour with him. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1223/B/10, 163 to 167/B/11, 1118 & 1088/B/12 Page 21 of 37 35. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that AO has relied upon the photocopy

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

unexplained investment in the property. 10. The Appellant craves for leave to add, to delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation as on 31-03-2016. If the impugned investment of Rs. 22,75,000 had in fact been accounted for and disclosed in the return of income for the year under consideration as claimed by the assessee, the opening and closing balances of assets in the subsequent year ought to have been substantially higher. However, the balances reflected

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation as on 31-03-2016. If the impugned investment of Rs. 22,75,000 had in fact been accounted for and disclosed in the return of income for the year under consideration as claimed by the assessee, the opening and closing balances of assets in the subsequent year ought to have been substantially higher. However, the balances reflected

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation as on 31-03-2016. If the impugned investment of Rs. 22,75,000 had in fact been accounted for and disclosed in the return of income for the year under consideration as claimed by the assessee, the opening and closing balances of assets in the subsequent year ought to have been substantially higher. However, the balances reflected

M/S VRL LOGISTICS LTD,HUBLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment in building including interest on borrowings. It was noted by that the depreciation schedule of the assessee indicated

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance made

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance made

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance made

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance made

SURAJ ALWANDI,HUBLI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBLI, HUBLI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved