KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 69B of the Act 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, is deriving income from house property

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

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. 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

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

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

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

house agents at Mangalore. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2008. Survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the port premises of the assessee. In the course of the search, certain documents were found

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return