M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall

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

disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act without considering the contention that section 40A(3) is not applicable and addition is not warranted. 10. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) e r r ed in upholding the addition of Rs.3 lakhs made applying the provisions of section 69B

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

disallowance of commission expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect as the amount was retained at source and not received by the assessee. The addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted as it fell within the permissible limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 1916.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "40(a)(ia)", "144", "153C", "132(4)", "131(1)", "69B

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed the deduction & adding the same under head salary and on the other hand, invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act which is completely unacceptable. Section 115BBE can only be invoked in Biju Pappachan, Kollam Page 13 of 14 case of tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69B and 69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

69B or fair market value of any property referred to in Sub-Section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. Page 10 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure

BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT. LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 69B. The CIT(A) deleted the addition accepting the contention of the assessee, the expenditure cannot be same as the actual expenditure. The CIT(A) has not given any specific finding for deleting the addition made. Reliance is placed on decision of Uttarakhand High court in the case of Smt. Kiran Lata (177 TAXMANN 420) wherein it is held

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores