ANAND MULKY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued by the AO, assessee made submissions which is incorporated by the assessment Order and from the submissions it is noted that during the demonetization

SRI. DARPAN KUMAR ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

TDS payable paid within the prescribed time under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 8. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.27,39,380/- as unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization

MOHAMMAD SHAHID,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period was out of his savings. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the salary drawn by the Appellant during the relevant financial years to AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 was an average of Rs. 11 Lakhs per annum and received the said salary after the requisite TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPO, SHIVAMOGGA vs. M/S. BHOOPALAM MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

TDS) is effected on commission. 2.6 It is submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO issued notices / communications electronically to the mail address that was not in use. The Learned Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s 144 by making addition of Rs.2,98,08,080/- U/s 69A read with section 115BBE, being cash deposited during the demonetization

M/S. BHOOPALAM MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIMGOA

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

TDS) is effected on commission. 2.6 It is submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO issued notices / communications electronically to the mail address that was not in use. The Learned Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s 144 by making addition of Rs.2,98,08,080/- U/s 69A read with section 115BBE, being cash deposited during the demonetization

ABHINAVASRI VIVIDODESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA KANAKAGIRI ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KOPPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

TDS u/s 194J of the Act is warranted. Hence, we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. . Page 3 of 6 7. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 and 3 is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

VEERANNA CHANDRASHEKHAR MARNAL ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HUBLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

demonetization period from 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 was Rs.19,98,780/-. Since, the assessee could not justify the cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes the AO added the Rs.19,98,780/-u/s.69 of the Act. Further, the AO made an addition of Rs.13,21,452/- being business income @ 10% of Rs.1,32,14,520/-. During the appellate proceedings the assessee

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out . The Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.1,55,16,,000/- which is also not substantiated. 26. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also\nunable to establish the nature of business carried out. The Learned DR further\nsubmitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.1,55,16,000/-\nwhich is also not substantiated.\n\n26.\nConsidering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on\nrecord and Order of the authorities below, we noted

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

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

TDS made in the form of Form 27A filed by the Appellant are not justified in disallowing Rs.69,11,858/- under section 40(a)(ia). 4. Without prejudice to the above, treating the differential value of VAT of Rs.2,10,250/- as income: 4.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the addition wrongly made

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

TDS. Apart from the two issues, the AO had also treated the cash deposits made in the SB notes during the demonetisation period as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act even though the assessee had explained that the SB notes deposited were the monies deposited by the members towards their loan repayments, interest payments, EMIs, deposits

SURESH BABU CHALORAKANDY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(6), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Suresh Babu Chalorakandy, Vs. Ito, No. 54, Shivamayam, Someshwara Layout, Ward – 5(3)(6), Ms Palya, Near Sambram College, Bangalore. Vidyaranyapura (Po), Bangalore North, Bangalore – 560 097. Pan : Adfpc 6359 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chytanya V. Mudrabettu,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

demonetization period a sum of Rs.15,80,000/- was deposited and further on verification of the entire bank statement, it was noticed that there was total cash deposit of Rs.36,35,500/-. For natural justice, show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2019 and assessee was asked to justify the source of cash deposits of Rs.36,.35,500/- but the assessee

GOWDARA MAHALINGAPPA ,DAVANAGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS u/s 194-IA of the Act in all aggregating to Rs.67,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands) only unto the Vendor Mr. A.S.Premanath. 10. This apart the balance sum of Rs.21,57,500/- (Rupees Twenty-one Lakhs Fifty-seven Thousand Five Hundred) only was paid back to the Firm M/s Gowdara Jayadevappa Silks & Sarees by Cheque No.171553

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS. Based on the chequebooks found in the premises of the Appellant at Anantapur, the visiting search team started suspecting that the payments to sub-contractors were not genuine. Thereafter, the entire case came to be built by the search team on this surmise. 5. It was explained by the partners in the very first instance that these cheque books

BASAPPA RAMESH,BANGALORE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS schedule, held that the appellant had not retired from Jaydeva Hospital and could not have done private practice. During appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that he retired on 01/08/2016 and filed certificate dated 20/12/2016 issued by the hospital. A copy of cash receipt statement for the period 01/04/2016 to 31/07/2016 amounting to cash receipt of Rs.5

R ARUNACHALAM P C P P LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period and further noticed that the assessee had disclosed the cash in hand as on 08/11/2016 of Rs.64,26,720/-. In this regard, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of the cash deposited of SBNs and non SBNs with the other details vide Page 4 of 6 notice dated 29/12/2019 but the assessee failed to file

SRI. BEVAHALLI GANGAPPA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,,KOLAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period in his Axis Bank account in Chintamani. The assessee filed return of income electronically on 28 September 2019 declaring & total income of RS.67,90,860/-. The total income consisted of salary of Rs.49,25,200/-, hospital income under section 44ADA of Rs.5,00,000/- pharmacy income under section 44AD of Rs. 15,27,661/- and other sources

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

TDS. Based on the chequebooks found in the premises of the\nAppellant at Anantapur the visiting search team started suspecting that\nthe payments to sub-contractors were not genuine. Thereafter, the entire\ncase came to be built in the search team on this surmise.\n5. It was explained by the partners in the very first instance that\nthese cheque books

MURALIDHAR MYSORE SUNDARESH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

TDS credit has not been given despite available in Form 26AS; 17. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1)of the Act; 18. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 27 IF of the Act for not filing the return