SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C, which accordingly is not liable to be classified under those heads of income. More recently, the Apex Court in Prakash Chand Lunia (Decd.) v. CIT [2023] 454 ITR 61 (SC), repelled the assessee’s – a dealer in silver, claim of loss on account of confiscation by the Customs Deptt. apprehending it as of smuggled nature. While the Tribunal disallowed

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's\npersonal expenditure.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an\nappeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the\nassessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a\nmechanical approval u/sec. 153D

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's\npersonal expenditure.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an\nappeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the\nassessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a\nmechanical approval u/sec. 153D

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was observed on the verification of the cash flow statement and statement of income filed by the assessee, it 3 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. was observed that the assessee has shown an income of INR 8,50,000 under the head “Income from Other Sources”, which was not duly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment of unabated income. The expenditure incurred to earn the unaccounted income was disallowed.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "69C

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

69C stands made in assessment/s: EXPENSES SHOWN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN KAKAYANGAD KAKAYANGAD CHAKKARAKL CHAKKARAKL 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 PURCHASES 725044 4807898 1271069 634139 LABOUR 1534858 1896150 3338876 1263349 LOADING & UNLOADING 26940 15905 21298 15425 MAINTENANCE 2920 298790 84987 39020 MISCELLANEOUS 14128 6150 9172 596 TRANSPORTING

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

69C stands made in assessment/s: EXPENSES SHOWN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN KAKAYANGAD KAKAYANGAD CHAKKARAKL CHAKKARAKL 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 PURCHASES 725044 4807898 1271069 634139 LABOUR 1534858 1896150 3338876 1263349 LOADING & UNLOADING 26940 15905 21298 15425 MAINTENANCE 2920 298790 84987 39020 MISCELLANEOUS 14128 6150 9172 596 TRANSPORTING

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

69C stands made in assessment/s: EXPENSES SHOWN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN BROAD BEAN KAKAYANGAD KAKAYANGAD CHAKKARAKL CHAKKARAKL 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 PURCHASES 725044 4807898 1271069 634139 LABOUR 1534858 1896150 3338876 1263349 LOADING & UNLOADING 26940 15905 21298 15425 MAINTENANCE 2920 298790 84987 39020 MISCELLANEOUS 14128 6150 9172 596 TRANSPORTING

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

69C of the Act etc. based on the seized material found during the course of search and seizure operations. The material, so sized was confronted to the assessee during the course of recording the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted that evidence unearthed during the course of search reflects actual sales. The AO accordingly made

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

69C of the Act etc. based on the seized material found during the course of search and seizure operations. The material, so sized was confronted to the assessee during the course of recording the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted that evidence unearthed during the course of search reflects actual sales. The AO accordingly made

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

69C of the Act etc. based on the seized material found during the course of search and seizure operations. The material, so sized was confronted to the assessee during the course of recording the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted that evidence unearthed during the course of search reflects actual sales. The AO accordingly made

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

69C of the Act etc. based on the seized material found during the course of search and seizure operations. The material, so sized was confronted to the assessee during the course of recording the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he admitted that evidence unearthed during the course of search reflects actual sales. The AO accordingly made

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee’s personal expenditure. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the 3 ITA Nos. 517-520/Coch/2023 K.K. Radhakrishnan assessment order passed by the AO is invalid

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess the “total income” taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns of income. 17. On merits of the addition, on mere perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the AO made the addition based on the contents of the seized

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess the “total income” taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns of income. 17. On merits of the addition, on mere perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the AO made the addition based on the contents of the seized

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess the “total income” taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns of income. 17. On merits of the addition, on mere perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the AO made the addition based on the contents of the seized