AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

69A are not satisfied with respect to the sum of Rs.5,24,54,000/- (comprised in the sum of Rs.7,65,54,000/-). 29. The ld. AR submits that diaries reflect two aspects:- Page 27 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 a. A listing of amounts as are fixed as installments for each student and that the amount that the student

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

69A are not satisfied with respect to the sum of Rs.5,24,54,000/- (comprised in the sum of Rs.7,65,54,000/-). 29. The ld. AR submits that diaries reflect two aspects:- a. A listing of amounts as are fixed as installments for each student and that the amount that the student should pay. The amount mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

section 69A of the Act. The assessee had declared business income of Rs. 35,47,712/- which includes the gross profit on sales of Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. f) The assessee, without prejudice to its other contentions, contended before the CIT(A) that since sales to the extent of Rs. 1,30,63,520/- was considered

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

bogus purchases and additional income on account of alleged difference in Stock. Page 4 2.4 For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 23/11/2018 declaring total income of Rs.17,78,99,390/-, wherein the assessee declared income on account of inflated purchases and also on account of alleged difference in stock amounting to only Rs.5

DRESS CODE ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

section 234B. Prayer 13. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the order passed by the learned AO as well as the learned CIT(A) be quashed or in the Page 4 of 9 alternative, the aforesaid grounds and relief prayed for thereunder be allowed

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

bogus long term capital gain but she failed to explain the source or even admit this income. She even did not file any return of income in response to notice served on her u/s 148. Since the assessee is earning income from business and profession but not maintained book. The penalty proceeding has been also initiated u/s 271A

NITIN KUMAR BOHRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(5) and rejected the books of accounts. The ld. FAA rebutted the pointwise to the submissions made by the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs.51,95,740 as income u/s. 69A of the Act and tax rate was applied u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHET ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

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

69A of the Act. 10. Accordingly the assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) of the Act on 30.12.2019 computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,99,94,070/–. 11. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT–A. The ld. CIT–A after considering the explanation of the assessee confirmed Page

NANDI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER APPEAL, VIJAYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus companies as well as other cooperative societies. Hence, the assessee has to prove the genuineness of all major cash credits, in the light of new information that the assessee is part of channel to route unexplained cash into the banking system. The trail of cash from source to destination needs to be investigated, and brought to tax.” 3.2 Accordingly

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

purchase, sale, opening and closing stock (quantity wise and value wise) has been accepted by the department year after year and in some years under scrutiny proceedings, therefore, non existence of stock of business cannot be upheld; secondly, the sale of stock in the earlier years and the sale of balance left out stock in subsequent years has been accepted