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

Unexplained investments. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income57, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature

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

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment on the basis of ITS information which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case and with regard to the denial of carry forward of losses, the learned A.R. vehemently submitted that the denial of losses without verification/ examination to the tune of Rs. 29,34,388/- is erroneous

MAHESH LINGAPPA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment is liable to be cancelled. Page 3 of 7 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is in the business of liquor and he had filed the return of income originally disclosing fully and accordingly the 4. assessment as made by applying the provision of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act will not applicable

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Unexplained investment u/s 69B\nTotal\nRs.80 lakhs\nRs.4 lakhs\nRs.84 lakhs.\n3.1\nAccording to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose\nslips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that\nthe said loose slips reads as follows:\nITBA/AST/M/153A/2019-20/1023248118(1)\nRabs: 125,000/ Cong.\n(Paid 95,00,000/-\nBclamce Dmart\nmoth\n68\n3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

investment in the construction, which is based on the seized material A/THI/8 page 7, which shows the payment to MKH Infrastructure. 16.2 As discussed in earlier para of this order in ITA No.167/Bang/2024 for assessment year 2017-18, this addition is deleted. 17. Next addition of Rs.59 lakhs as an unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In page

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA 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 Keshav Dubey

investment in the construction, which is based on the seized material A/THI/8 page 7, which shows the payment to MKH Infrastructure. 16.2 As discussed in earlier para of this order in ITA No.167/Bang/2024 for assessment year 2017-18, this addition is deleted. 17. Next addition of Rs.59 lakhs as an unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In page

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated. A significant portion of the income assessed was an addition of Rs. 76,70,000/- on account of unexplained investment

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

investment in the hands of the appellant on the facts and \ncircumstances of the case. \n\nii. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the said addition on \nprotective basis merely on the ground that no addition was made in \nthe hands of the appellant’s spouse on the facts and circumstances of \nthe case. \n\niii

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

unexplained investment in the hand of appellant because asset was found in company books hence if there is addition to be made if any, it is in the hand of company and not in the hand of appellant 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

unexplained investment in the hand of appellant because asset was found in company books hence if there is addition to be made if any, it is in the hand of company and not in the hand of appellant 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

unexplained investment in the hand of appellant because asset was found in company books hence if there is addition to be made if any, it is in the hand of company and not in the hand of appellant 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 6.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee after considering various documents filed by assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 6.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee after considering various documents filed by assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceeding was not sustainable Where Assessing Officer, on basis of search conducted at premises of A seized a diary which contained details of payment made by A to assessee, made addition in hands of assessee under section 69B as unexplained investment