MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

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

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

capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

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

capital by the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to the members is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ruling of Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra), Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita vs. ITO as well as by the decision

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

capital gains is intended\nto tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained\nand what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the\nassessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income.\nSimilarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nShivakami

SRI. THIMMAISH SRINIVAS ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

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

capital gains. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Sri Thimmaiah Srinivas, Bangalore Page 4 of 8 5. During the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC called for a remand report from the AO vide office order dated 8.8.2024. However

SHEETAL KAWAD ,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period requiring the assessee to file return of income on or before 31.03.2018 but no return of income was filed in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act. As no return of income was filed for the year under consideration accordingly the AO invoking the provisions of section 144 of the IT Act, 1961, concluded

SHAON PAUL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION, WARD 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri George George K

demonetization period. The AO obtained a copy of the bank statement for the relevant period by issue of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It was noticed that assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 16.11.2016 in his SB A/c maintained with Canara Bank. The assessee explained the source of cash deposit by stating that

NANJAPPA UMASHANKER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

gains of business or profession". However, as is a common requirement in the nature of business carried on by the assessee, he had set aside a significant sum of money to meet costs of labour, raw material, etc., in the event that any contracts were awarded to him. That apart, the assessee had, on 13-06-2006, purchased the immovable

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIPTUR vs. SRIUDAYARAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

demonetization period of\nRs.1,99,33,500/- which was added back under section 69A of the Act and\napplied section 115BBE of the Act.\n7.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT(A). The learned CIT(A) allowed appeal of the assessee and he has\nallowed deduction under section

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

NAGINI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR vs. SRI UDAYRAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

demonetization period of Rs.1,99,33,500/- which was added back under section 69A of the Act and applied section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) allowed appeal of the assessee and he has allowed deduction under section