T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act applies in respect of sum found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee maintained for any previous year relevant to the assessment year. Thus, the assessee is required to prove the entries of amounts credited in the books of accounts of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. The rough cash book

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section. As per Rule 11UA (2) (b), option is given to the assessee to choose the method of valuation. Valuation as per DCF method is an approved method and the assessee has chosen it. Valuation of Premium @ Rs. 7,872/- is also by same method as per a valuation report of the same C. A. dated 18.09.2012 and higher

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68 in the hands of the\nassessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the\npartner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the\nassessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission\ncontained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If\nAO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued\nsummons

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68 in the hands of the\nassessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the\npartner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the\nassessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission\ncontained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If\nAO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued\nsummons

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

68 in the books of account and whether the same is required to be taxed u/s 1 15BBE of Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 is hereby partly set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment Order after making thorough enquiry on above issues. 11. It is further directed that

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.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time of search. ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 2 of 23 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has ought to have appreciated the fact that, an addition cannot be made

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.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time of search. ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 2 of 23 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has ought to have appreciated the fact that, an addition cannot be made

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.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time of search. ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 2 of 23 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has ought to have appreciated the fact that, an addition cannot be made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas