DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

TDS and net\npayable. Further, Page No.74 of the seized folder marked as A/GL/01 is a hand\nwritten statement containing the details of working of interest on total loans\nextended by the assessee and his family members both through banking channels\nas well as in cash for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018 wherein it is\nmentioned that on Rs.10

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

money.” 18.5 In view of the above, we hold that unexplained investments can be taxed under section 69B of the Act even in cases where the assessee has not maintained books of account. Thus, the deeming fiction under section 69B of the Act remains applicable so long as the source of the investment is not satisfactorily explained. 18.6 Before parting

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

money.” 18.5 In view of the above, we hold that unexplained investments can be taxed under section 69B of the Act even in cases where the assessee has not maintained books of account. Thus, the deeming fiction under section 69B of the Act remains applicable so long as the source of the investment is not satisfactorily explained. 18.6 Before parting

SMT. SHANTHI R PAI,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

money deposited into bank account on the reason that there was unexplained deposit into assessee’s bank account as follows: Smt. Shanthi R. Pai, Udupi Page 5 of 5 SI. No. F. Y. Information Code Information Value 1 2012-13 AIR-001 Deposited cash of Rs.10,00,0db or Rs.26,79,000/- more in a Saving Bank Account

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

money. Since during the coure of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposits even after providing multiple opportunities. the source of the same remains unexplained and assessee did not furnish business activity carried out of which cash deposits were made. Hence the contention of the assessee that amount deposited out of her business activity

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

unexplained has to be assessee’s money. TDS has been deducted on the sum payable by VHPL. The AO himself

KLENE PAKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

money along with premium received during the year as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee contended that the names, current address, PAN, ledger copy, mode of transaction, copy of ITR acknowledgment of the parties etc. were already filed through earlier . ITA No.1771 & 1772/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 14 submission. The parties were regular filer

KLENE PAKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

money along with premium received during the year as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee contended that the names, current address, PAN, ledger copy, mode of transaction, copy of ITR acknowledgment of the parties etc. were already filed through earlier . ITA No.1771 & 1772/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 14 submission. The parties were regular filer

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS or exempted under the Act. Upon retirement, the assessee received gratuity of Rs.7,19,063/- which the assessee claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10) of the Act and also received Commuted pension of Rs.15,25,689/- from the employer i.e. the Central Government which is claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10A) of the Act. The case

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

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

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

unexplained money. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the assessment order of the AO which was passed without considering or examining the numerous documents submitted by the Appellant and not appreciating the detailed replies and explanations furnished by the Appellant. 5. That, in any event, the Learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessment proceedings

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

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

money to Canara Page 3 of 9 ITA Nos. 375 & 564/Bang/2022 Bank or branches of State Bank of India and purchase the currency. In a few cases payments are made to a collection centre from where the amounts are remitted to bank. There is no human factor involved in affecting sales which is completely transacted electronically. 2.5 It is submitted

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

money to Canara Page 3 of 9 ITA Nos. 375 & 564/Bang/2022 Bank or branches of State Bank of India and purchase the currency. In a few cases payments are made to a collection centre from where the amounts are remitted to bank. There is no human factor involved in affecting sales which is completely transacted electronically. 2.5 It is submitted

PEOPLE TREE CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHAMARAJPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO assessed on a total income of Rs.1,05,59,519/- to be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.02.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

unexplained income. The AO also noticed that the assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.26,40,000/- towards development expenses. The AO has called upon the assessee to prove the above expenditure and also the compliance of TDS provisions, as per questionnaire issued on 11/03/2010. The assessee-company neither produced proof of incurring of expenditure nor has shown any compliance of TDS

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

unexplained income. The AO also noticed that the assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.26,40,000/- towards development expenses. The AO has called upon the assessee to prove the above expenditure and also the compliance of TDS provisions, as per questionnaire issued on 11/03/2010. The assessee-company neither produced proof of incurring of expenditure nor has shown any compliance of TDS