M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

69B by applying\nthe provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and thereby\nraised tax demand of Rs.97,94,930.\n\n7.5 As per the MoU between PIPL & the assessee company for the\nPremero Project, the supplementary deed dated 26.10.2015 in\nrespect of the Premero project was for Rs.4.00 crores and the\nassessee had accounted for Rs.4.00 crores

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

69B of the Act, in the hands of the assessee, holding that the cash amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- is paid by the assessee. It is also on record that Sri.Sachin Narayan has admitted to the payment of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- by cash.The AO’s conclusion which has been upheld

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

transfer of properties”. 8.12. 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

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

transfer of properties”. 8.12. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE vs. MR. SHORFF KRISHNARAJASETTY SATHEESHA, KODAGU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

price was renegotiated is not supported by any evidences and has been denied by Sri.Jawahar. The A.O. further observed that Sri.Jawahar was also denied that there was an arrangement to transfer some other land and stated that one side of the boundary of the impugned land was the land belonging to the assessee and access to the property was easy

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 56(2)(vi) w.e.f. 1.4.2010 therefore, the said provision is also not applicable for the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Buchar (supra) while dealing an identical issue has held in paras 2 & 3 as under : “ 2. There is categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income

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

69B of the Act at Rs.84 lakhs, there should be corroborative and conclusive evidence to support this addition. The first addition of Rs.80 lakhs (Total Rs.95 lakhs in cash (-) Cheque payment of Rs.15 lakhs = Rs.80 lakhs) which is based on the rough notings at back side of the sale agreement, which is a loose slip and cannot be speak itself

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

69B of the Act at Rs.84 lakhs, there should be corroborative and conclusive evidence to support this addition. The first addition of Rs.80 lakhs (Total Rs.95 lakhs in cash (-) Cheque payment of Rs.15 lakhs = Rs.80 lakhs) which is based on the rough notings at back side of the sale agreement, which is a loose slip and cannot be speak itself

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

69B of the Act at Rs.84 lakhs, there should be corroborative and conclusive evidence to support this addition. The first addition of Rs.80 lakhs (Total Rs.95 lakhs in cash (-) Cheque payment of Rs.15 lakhs = Rs.80 lakhs) which is based on the rough notings at back side of the sale agreement, which is a loose slip and cannot be speak itself

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

69B of the Act at Rs.84 lakhs, there should be corroborative and conclusive evidence to support this addition. The first addition of Rs.80 lakhs (Total Rs.95 lakhs in cash (-) Cheque payment of Rs.15 lakhs = Rs.80 lakhs) which is based on the rough notings at back side of the sale agreement, which is a loose slip and cannot be speak itself

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

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

69B of the Act at\nRs.84 lakhs, there should be corroborative and conclusive evidence\nto support this addition. The first addition of Rs.80 lakhs (Total\nRs.95 lakhs in cash (-) Cheque payment of Rs.15 lakhs = Rs.80\nlakhs) which is based on the rough notings at back side of the sale\nagreement, which is a loose slip and cannot be speak itself

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall