SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

invest in new residential property. On the other hand, the assessee has purchased some non-agricultural land and making a plea that assessee was not able to construct new house in the said non-agricultural land due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. First of all, the said non-agricultural land cannot be said that property meant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

house. The total amount paid was Rs.11,00,000/- during the\nFY16-17.\nPage No.169 and 170 contain the details of amount paid to Mr. Chetan Gopal for\npurchasing his property. The total amount paid to him was Rs.1,64,00,000/-. However,\nthe property was registered only for Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The remaining amount of\nRs.49

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

house property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society is distinguishable. 5. Only in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment of Rs.54

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

unexplained investment. Here, the evidence on record shows that the sum of ₹ 53,43,800/- was not an investment by the assessee but by his father. The Department, if not satisfied with the father’s explanation, ought to have made suitable proceedings in the father’s case. Fastening the liability on the assessee merely because the property

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

unexplained investment. Here, the evidence on record shows that the sum of ₹ 53,43,800/- was not an investment by the assessee but by his father. The Department, if not satisfied with the father’s explanation, ought to have made suitable proceedings in the father’s case. Fastening the liability on the assessee merely because the property

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

house. The total amount paid was Rs.11,00,000/- during the\nFY16-17.\n\nPage No.169 and 170 contain the details of amount paid to Mr. Chetan Gopal for\npurchasing his property. The total amount paid to him was Rs.1,64,00,000/-. However,\nthe property was registered only for Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The remaining amount of\nRs.49

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

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing loan from HDFC Bank to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-. The statement of HDFC Loan account was also submitted before the AO and as well as DRP. Further, with regard to balance of funding to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- for the property, the assessee explained as below- 1. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through vide

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

investment can be availed for one of the residential house arising out of Joint Development agreement and on the other hand conveniently ignoring the other- residential houses resulting to assessee as a result of joint ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 7 of 12 development agreement so as to be complaint with conditions stipulated in section

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

investment can be availed for one of the residential house arising out of Joint Development agreement and on the other hand conveniently ignoring the other- residential houses resulting to assessee as a result of joint ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 7 of 12 development agreement so as to be complaint with conditions stipulated in section

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

unexplained investment. These grounds are taken up together for the sake of clarity and brevity. The ld. AO has given detailed reasons for makings this addition in the Assessment Order. The assessee's LR was given due opportunity to present her case with facts and evidence. Statements of the LR herself, the purchaser of the property, Shri Parasmal Lodha

SRI. VINAY SUDHIR KASHTHRIYA,DHARWAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Unexplained Investment in property. The Appellant had not maintained any books of accounts and being not conversant with accounts or income tax was not able to prepare his assets and liabilities from year to year. The Appellant has now prepared Statements of Accounts on 31/03/2009 which is at Annexure I. It can be seen from the Statement of Accounts that

SRI. VINAY SUDHIR KASHTHRIYA,DHARWAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Unexplained Investment in property. The Appellant had not maintained any books of accounts and being not conversant with accounts or income tax was not able to prepare his assets and liabilities from year to year. The Appellant has now prepared Statements of Accounts on 31/03/2009 which is at Annexure I. It can be seen from the Statement of Accounts that

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

INVESTMENT OF THE ACT. Mr Sachin Narayan, who has owned up the cash payment made to Vishalakshi devi , is not a man of straw, but a man of substantial means and the same can be verified from his Tax Records with the Revenue. No man will accept the onus of having made such a huge cash payment in an Income