KAMAL KOTHARI ,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kamal Kothari, Vs. Ito, Prop: M/S. B. L. Bankers, Ward – 1, M. G. Road, Ramnagar. Channapatna – 562 160. Pan : Bcgpk 1898 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2023

transfer, as he had done by depositing cash of Rs.20,000/-. This again goes on to prove that the assessee had no such cash on hand. f) Lastly, If the assessee had cash on hand on the day of demonetization day le.. 8.11.2016 and from 9.11.2016. one would have exchanged the old notes only through bank deposits

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

price in SBNs as a part of such activity,\nif accepted, would defeat the provisions of such section of RBI, 1934 and it\nleads to public policy. Therefore, the activity of society with regard to this,\nis ab-initio void as per the relevant provisions. Hence the society for having\ndeposited such SBNs in banks during such period, represents

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

demonetization period and deposited the same during such period and showed advance of Rs.2,11,44,2911- as on 08.11.2016 to cover the same, ought not to have invoked section 68 as the source of deposit being sale proceeds stood accepted by them. 5.11. The lower authorities are not justified levying tax on aforesaid addition under section 115BBE on Rs.1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

transfer of properties”.\n4.34 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs.\nITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended\nto tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained\nand what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the\nassessee cannot fastened with the liability