MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 292B of the Act. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Order o Ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.20,86,560/- solely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act completely ignoring the books of accounts of the Appellant. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the case

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 292B of the Act. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Order o Ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.20,86,560/- solely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act completely ignoring the books of accounts of the Appellant. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the case

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

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2 were received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by cash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office people use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know the nature of these payments.” 3.10 When confronted with

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2 were received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by cash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office people use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know the nature of these payments.” 3.10 When confronted with

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2 were received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by cash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office people use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know the nature of these payments.” 3.10 When confronted with

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

sections": ["68", "132(4)", "153C", "115BBE", "69B", "69C", "292B"], "issues": "Whether additions made under Section 68 of the Income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

292B. The assessee-company had participated in the assessment proceedings and there was no dispute about the issue of notice u/s 143(2). The proceedings finally culminated in passing of the order u/s 143 though wrong section was mentioned. We do not find fallacy in the reasoning of the CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

292B. The assessee-company had participated in the assessment proceedings and there was no dispute about the issue of notice u/s 143(2). The proceedings finally culminated in passing of the order u/s 143 though wrong section was mentioned. We do not find fallacy in the reasoning of the CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2 were received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by cash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office people use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know the nature of these payments.” 14. When confronted with

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

sections": [ "132", "153C", "153A", "68", "292B", "143(2)", "143(3)", "147", "148", "139", "147 to 149", "151", "153" ], "issues

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing

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

section 292B of the Act provides that minor error, omissions, or misdescriptions in an assessment order do not render it invalid, as long as the substance of the proceedings remains legally correct. Here, the AO’s approach is consistent with the statutory framework and judicial principles, ensuring that the liability is assessed at the estate level rather than imposing