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

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. 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 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

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN 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, 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 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

NERALAKERE MARULASIDDAPPA DAYANANDA ,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Neralakere Marulasiddappa The Income-Tax Officer, Dayananda, Ward-1, S/O Ns Marulasiddappa, Vs. Chikmagalur. Neralekere Post, Tarikere. Pan – Aswpd 5306 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vevek A.R, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 2/2/2023 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. The Entire Appeal Order Passed By Learned Cit In So Far It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Principle Of Equity & Justice. 2. The Learned Ao Erred In Bringing Amount Of Rs.18.44 Lakhs To Tax Without Appreciating The Fact That, Appellant Is An Agriculturist & Has Given All Particulars Which Were Sought By The Learned Ao. 3. The Learned Ao Ought To Have Considered The Income Of Huf Also While Concluding The Assessment. Page 2 Of 7

69B, Sec. 69C or Sec. 69D is assessed. If a part of agriculture income is disbelieved for want of documentary proof and if it is not used for any investment or unexplained expenditure, the same cannot be brought to tax U/s. 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition