MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

68,25,802/- on the alleged transfer of property during the year invoking the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that there was no transfer of the property during the year under appeal and hence, the computation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

53A are “where a person contracts”, which means just the existence of the contract. The assessee is a “person” who has entered into a contract with the developer viz., IDEB Investments (P) Ltd. on 30.3.2007. This section says "to transfer" means the said contract is in respect of a transfer and not for any other purpose. The term "transfer

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). During the previous year 2008-09, the Appellants (holding a share of 10% each) and along with other co-owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). During the previous year 2008-09, the Appellants (holding a share of 10% each) and along with other co-owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

68:32 comes to Page 4 of 35 Rs.6,69,12,000/-, 50% being the assessee's share comes to Rs.3,34,56,000/-. The capital gains assessable in the capacity of HUF comes to Rs.3,34,56,000/-. 5. On going through the return of income filed by the assessee it is found that the assessee has not offered

DR.SYED RAHMATULLAH AZIZULLAH ,GULBARGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Section 53A. It was submitted that in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (supra), the JDA was entered during Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and because those dates were after such amendment by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in that case that

DR.SYED RAHMATULLAH AZIZULLAH ,GULBARGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Section 53A. It was submitted that in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (supra), the JDA was entered during Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and because those dates were after such amendment by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in that case that

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act without appreciating the fact that the clause X(c) and Para 6.1 of the agreement clearly indicate that constructive possession has been handed over to the builder. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessees have not parted with possession of the property by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act without appreciating the fact that the clause X(c) and Para 6.1 of the agreement clearly indicate that constructive possession has been handed over to the builder. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessees have not parted with possession of the property by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act without appreciating the fact that the clause X(c) and Para 6.1 of the agreement clearly indicate that constructive possession has been handed over to the builder. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessees have not parted with possession of the property by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act without appreciating the fact that the clause X(c) and Para 6.1 of the agreement clearly indicate that constructive possession has been handed over to the builder. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessees have not parted with possession of the property by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT

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.

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth hidden income or property. Thus, the wry purpose/ essence of search

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.

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth hidden income or property. Thus, the wry purpose/ essence of search

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.

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth hidden income or property. Thus, the wry purpose/ essence of search

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

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth hidden income or property. Thus, the wry purpose/ essence of search