Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2014-15
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Loose Sheets & Confession Not Enough – ITAT Bangalore Deletes Additions in Kasargod Builder’s Case These six appeals by Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, a Kasargod-based real estate developer, arose from search assessments u/s 153A/144 for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19.  AO had made huge additions u/s 69B on the basis of loose sheets, rough notings & sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4), treating them as unexplained investments in land purchases & business income. CIT(A) had confirmed the additions. AY 2013-14 (ITA 485/Bang/2024) AO made a...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Penny Stock Addition Fails: ITAT Says Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence Borrowed Satisfaction: ITAT Quashes Penny Stock Additions in Multiple Family Cases Statement Alone Cannot Justify ‘On-Money’ Addition: ITAT Mumbai Genuine ITR Mistake Cannot Lead to Tax on Wrong Income: ITAT Mumbai AO Cannot Reopen on the Same Material Examined in U/s 153C Assessment: ITAT Quashes ₹2.90 Crore Addition View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930