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

SRI MOHAN PURI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

69A and in doing so he failed to appreciate that amenities and movable properties which were sold along with the original assets were agreed to be transferred by a separate agreement and the fact that no stamp duty was paid on the same does not make that an unexplained credit in as much as the source and the nature

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

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

gains specified in subsection (1) and whose total income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall be required to keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as required under sub-section (2) of section 44AA and get them audited and furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

gains specified in subsection (1) and whose total income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall be required to keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as required under sub-section (2) of section 44AA and get them audited and furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB

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

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

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections

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

SRI DINESH KUMAR R PATEL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains on shares which is in pursuance to the inputs from the investigation wing. Thereafter statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the Act and issued show 5 ITA Nos.1824-1828/Bang/2018 Sri. Dinesh Kumar R.Patel & Ors. cause notice on 16.12.2016 informing the assessee that NCL Research being a penny stock company and called upon the assessee to show

SRI DHARAMSI R PATEL (HUF),BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains on shares which is in pursuance to the inputs from the investigation wing. Thereafter statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the Act and issued show 5 ITA Nos.1824-1828/Bang/2018 Sri. Dinesh Kumar R.Patel & Ors. cause notice on 16.12.2016 informing the assessee that NCL Research being a penny stock company and called upon the assessee to show