T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, 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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, 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

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

M/S. GREENS FARM TECH PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

197  Total Expenses: ₹45,69,355  Net Agricultural Income: ₹14,72,695  12.1 Thus, we note that there is variable difference in the value of agricultural income shown and claimed and disallowed by the AO. Further, the voluminous evidence filed is being considered for the first time, and the AO did not had an opportunity to examine its veracity

DINESH PAPOO MELWANI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. The assessment was completed by making this addition. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the materials on record and confirmed the addition. The Ld. Commissioner noted that the assessee had deposited ₹61,98,000 during demonetisation. The Assessing Officer had asked for reconciliation

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

197 only. 8.3 As regards sundry creditors, we note that they are merely trade liabilities arising from the very purchases which have been accepted (subject to profit element addition). Once purchases are accepted as having been made, the corresponding creditors cannot be held bogus without disturbing the purchases themselves. The logic is simple: if purchases are held to be genuine

HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1) & TPS, SHIMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

197 only. 8.3 As regards sundry creditors, we note that they are merely trade liabilities arising from the very purchases which have been accepted (subject to profit element addition). Once purchases are accepted as having been made, the corresponding creditors cannot be held bogus without disturbing the purchases themselves. The logic is simple: if purchases are held to be genuine

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

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

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

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

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

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

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

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

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\nallowed

197\n(Karnataka)[22-01-2024] the first question before the honourable court\nas per para no 21 of the decision\nWhether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have any evidentiary value?, it was\nanswered as under :-\n\"As regards Question No. 1:\nUpon reading the material provided and the order of the\nlearned Single Judge delivered

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\nallowed

197\n(Karnataka)[22-01-2024] the first question before the honourable court\nas per para no 21 of the decision\nWhether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have any evidentiary value?, it was\nanswered as under :-\n\"As regards Question No. 1:\nUpon reading the material provided and the order of the\nlearned Single Judge delivered

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. GLOBAL TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

197\n(Karnataka)[22-01-2024] the first question before the honourable court\nas per para no 21 of the decision\n\nWhether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have any evidentiary value?, it was\nanswered as under :-\n\n"As regards Question No. 1:\n\nUpon reading the material provided and the order of the\nlearned Single Judge delivered

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