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

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

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

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

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

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

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

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

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 68 of the Act and hence the addition made by the learned assessing officer, confirmed by the learned CIT(A) amounting to Rs.17,00,000 is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the source of source and origin of origin of the income of the third person need

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

220/- after claiming deduction of Rs.20,00,00,447/- under Chapter VI-A. The ROI was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru. 7. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the following issues:- (i) Large Deduction under Chapter VI-A form Total Income (ii) Large Cash Deposit during Demonetization (iii) High Value

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 of the Income Tax Act.” 8.1 The NFAC observed that M/s. Borneo Vinimay Private Limited is Kolkata based company where the assessee company holds 19.70% shares. From the audited account/ITR of he observed that the said company has issued 2,46,220 shares out of Rs.3,00,000/- authorized shares capita of Rs.10 each. The balance sheet also shows

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 of the Income Tax Act.” 8.1 The NFAC observed that M/s. Borneo Vinimay Private Limited is Kolkata based company where the assessee company holds 19.70% shares. From the audited account/ITR of he observed that the said company has issued 2,46,220 shares out of Rs.3,00,000/- authorized shares capita of Rs.10 each. The balance sheet also shows

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 Act in certain assessment years, he made wrong mentioning of the section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before

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 Act in certain assessment years, he made wrong mentioning of the section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before

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 Act in certain assessment years, he made wrong mentioning of the section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before

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 of the Act in this appeal. This is said to be received from following persons: a) Abdul Ansar - Rs.3.5 lakhs b) Hidayatullah - Rs.27.82 lakhs Total - Rs.31.32 lakhs 11.1 The contention of the ld. D.R. is that the assessee has not proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Admittedly, these credits are appearing in the books of accounts

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 of the Act in this appeal. This is said to be received from following persons: a) Abdul Ansar - Rs.3.5 lakhs b) Hidayatullah - Rs.27.82 lakhs Total - Rs.31.32 lakhs 11.1 The contention of the ld. D.R. is that the assessee has not proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Admittedly, these credits are appearing in the books of accounts

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE 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 Prakash Chand Yadav

220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act and sustain addition under section 69A of the Act. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT ITA No.512/Bang/2017 judgment dated 23.07.2018 has taken a view that the Tribunal has such powers. It was also pointed

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by order 27.12.2019, when the assessment is not time barred. 3. The learned CIT(A), is not justified in law in making additions amounting to Rs.9,63,350/- as undisclosed business income purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheets found at the time of search

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

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023