NIKSHEP INFRA PROJECTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

Unexplained Cash Credits U/s 68 without considering the details furnished by the Appellant and without giving adequate opportunity. 5). The Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that the Assessing officer had arbitrarily disallowed Royalty on Minerals of Rs. 52,26,815 deducted by the Government Departments in their Bills without any basis and without considering the explanation, details

LEELARAM CHOUDHARY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credits as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that mainly the additions made u/s.68 of the Act amounting to Rs.91,14,998 was on account of the following:- (i) The persons (Sr.Nos.1 to 10) who had replied

D.KOTI REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in AY 2008-009 forms part of the above said list of Rs.9,89,89,527/-. Shri D. Koti Reddy, Bangalore Page 7 of 14 (c) The assessee had furnished confirmation letters of all the creditors before the AO in AY 2012-13. Accordingly, the AO has accepted the genuineness

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

unexplained cash credit is not correct and needs to be deleted." 15. The CIT(A) held as follows: “10.3 I have considered the rival contentions carefully. It is also argued that the impounded books shows capital in the name of Sri. Moidinabba and similar capital is introduced in the name of Sri. Abdul Raheem Hussain with some differences

SRI. SOORA JAGANNATH ABHILASH,TUMKURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, TUMKURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2016-17

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 3. The assessee is an individual. He carries on the business of manufacturing and trading under the name and style M/s. Bhavani Rice Industries. In the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, the AO noticed that the Page

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

SRI. E. KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) issued remand order. The Assessing Officer in the remand report stated that the cash book produced after the issue of show cause notice cannot be accepted as genuine and has been a window dressed by adjusting some entries to arrive a positive cash balance

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

ITO, GULBARGA vs. M/S BASAVESHWARA DRUG AND SURGICALS, GULBARGA

In the result, C. O. filed by the assessee is dismissed

TDS without receiving any tax exempt certificate from its sister concern. 6. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A), has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

unexplained cash credits need to be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant could not have influenced the share prices as the sale took place in a recognized stock exchange on a screen based system where the traders in shares are unknown and thus the addition made

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

unexplained cash credits under section 68, in the light of evidence brought on record. The issue is being discussed, in the light of material available on record, in respect of different lender entities, as under. 8.13 In respect of loan credit of Rs. 5.85 Crore received from MRPL, I find that the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings

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