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

Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search A statement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?" In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 (Kol.) (TM), the Hon'ble ITAT ratified the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (l)(c) for concealing income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the revised return, declaring additional income, was submitted not out of voluntary compliance and good faith, but rather as a reaction to the concealment being detected

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements.ITA

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act has better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements