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
ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar
For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F
1,49,41,000/- made by the AO towards unexplained investment in the two properties vide Ground Nos. 6 & 7 in memo of appeal. The Ld.
CIT(A) observed that the two houses at Mavalli were registered in the name of the assessee for Rs. 81,90,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment and order
