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", "Section 132(4)", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 143(3)", "Section 132", "Section 131", "Section 133A", "Section 69B

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68", "Section 132(4)", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 131", "Section 69B

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

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

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

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

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

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

69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the IT Act and (ii) the Learned Assessing Officer levied tax & surcharge

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 investment investment Business u/s 69 of the u/s 69B of Act the Act 2016-17 6,25,000/- 1,99,400/- -- 1,99,40,000/- 2017-18 5,65,000/- 3,58,89,000/- -- -- 2018-19 2,90,000/- 34,36,000/- 64,84,900/- -- Note: The AO wrongly mentioned the sections

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 investment investment Business u/s 69 of the u/s 69B of Act the Act 2016-17 6,25,000/- 1,99,400/- -- 1,99,40,000/- 2017-18 5,65,000/- 3,58,89,000/- -- -- 2018-19 2,90,000/- 34,36,000/- 64,84,900/- -- Note: The AO wrongly mentioned the sections

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 investment investment Business u/s 69 of the u/s 69B of Act the Act 2016-17 6,25,000/- 1,99,400/- -- 1,99,40,000/- 2017-18 5,65,000/- 3,58,89,000/- -- -- 2018-19 2,90,000/- 34,36,000/- 64,84,900/- -- Note: The AO wrongly mentioned the sections

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

68 is not applicable, the cash deposit in the bank can be asked to be explained by the assessee under Section 69 or Section 69B

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C OR section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B,\n69C or 69D of the Act.\nxxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking

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

section 68 or 69 or 69B of the Act. The AO is not firm as to whether the assessee

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

section 68 or 69 or 69B of the Act. The AO is not firm as to whether the assessee

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

section 68 or 69 or 69B of the Act. The AO is not firm as to whether the assessee

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

section 68 or 69 or 69B of the Act. The AO is not firm as to whether the assessee

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 68, 69A, 69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 68, 69A, 69B & 69D of the Act have not been invoked in the assessment order and also erred