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

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

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

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

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

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

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VIJAY JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle

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

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

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), 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

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

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

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE 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 Prakash Chand Yadav

69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income is against the principle