MR. FIROZ AHAMMAD MUJAWAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

capital gain. However, this explanation of the assessee was not accepted observing that the assessee is unable to substantiate the source of cash deposit. Therefore, AO treated it as income under section 69A

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

capital gain. Therefore, there can \nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28] \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition \nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the \nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also \nbad in law and needs to be deleted. \n\nC. The Third

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gains”. However, the assessment was completed not only disallowing the deduction but making addition u/s. 69 and 69A of the Act which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The assessment proceedings are not made as per the issues which have to be examined under limited scrutiny. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment.” [Para 28] In view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition of Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and needs to be deleted. C. The Third issue

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the same representing part of the sale consideration of the residential house property sold for ₹61,00,000/-on 07.07.2010, Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Delhi)). Page 2 of 5 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

capital gain of Rs.1,00,93,764/-. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence to justify incurrence of expenditure in re-investment of proceeds from sale of agricultural land. 2.5 The reasons of CIT(A) for rejection of admission evidence are incorrect, contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can \nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition \nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the \nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also \nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

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.

69A of the Act. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271A of the Act stating that the assessee has not maintained books of account as mandated under Section 44AA of the Act. As there was no compliance to the notices issued for imposition of penalty under Section 271A of the Act, the AO vide order dated 11.11.2021 imposed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

Gains from\nBusiness & profession instead of treating it as\n\"Unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act\" and to tax at\nspecial rates given in section 115BBE of the Income -tax\nAct, 1961'.\n3. FACTS IN BRIEF - ITA No 2561/ BNG/ 2024\n3.1 The Appellant Department had carried out survey\nproceedings u/s 133A of the Income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR, RAICHUR vs. MARALBID PADMAVATHI, RAICHUR

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

capital gain. She ought to have shown the same in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The claim that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act is also not supported by any evidence. Though, however, in any case, assessee is not eligible for the same as this is adventure

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

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

section 69A is justified on facts of the instant case. However, I am of the view that entire addition is not warranted, since some amount of money would have been available with the assessee for making deposit on 16.11.2016. Moreover, assessee does not have any source of income from India except with regard to capital gains

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

69A. If any other interpretation is placed on this provision, any assessee not required to file books of account would get away scot-free when such assessee is found to have unaccounted 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

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

69A. If any other interpretation is placed on this provision, any assessee not required to file books of account would get away scot-free when such assessee is found to have unaccounted 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