M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a HUF, has filed its return of income declaring income from other sources and exempted LTCG. The assessee in the return of income has claimed exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

money based on material seized from residence of the Assessee Rs. 4,50,00,000/- (14) Unexplained jewellery based on material seized from residence of the Assessee Rs. 1,85,00,000/- (15) Capital gain

HARISH RAMCHANDRA JOSHI(HUF),HUBLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS , HUBLI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain of Rs.19,49,421 and has deposited the full value of consideration of Rs.1.5 crore. Thus the finding of the ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition on that ground itself is not proper. 12. Further, regarding the amount of deposit of Rs.1.5 crore in the Bank A/c, IDS 2016 itself has granted immunity that no adverse action

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

Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

money in a capital gain Smt. Rehana Abdul Jabbar, Mangaluru Page 9 of 14 deposit scheme of any National bank. Thus, the claim of assessee that assessee is having intention to invest in new residential property have no merit and as such, the provisions of section 54F of the Act cannot be considered liberally in this case. This ground

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

money, bullion, jewellery found at the time of search, which is claimed to have been acquired out of income of any previous year, or there must be income based on any entry in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions, which is claimed to represent income for any previous year which is ended before the date of search

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

capital gain on the full sale price of ₹ 61,00,000/-(net of cost & investment u/s 54), and simultaneously treated part of the same receipt as unexplained money

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

unexplained money u/s 69A: The learned assessing officer has observed that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.9,28,000/- in cash to the bank account. The assessee had submitted that these deposits are arising out of the agriculture receipts, receipts from poly house consultancy and other construction works. However, the learned AO has concluded

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

unexplained in terms of section 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the nature and source of such transaction stands explained on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Without prejudice and not conceding that the sale of shares were in order, the learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the purchase cost incurred by the appellant

SRI. MARALA REDDY SREENIVAS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, being the cash found and seized during the course of search under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Sri Marala Reddy Sreenivas, Bangalore Page 2 of 6 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that during the course of search the appellant had explained that the cash found

MANOJ KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

money in the guise of exempting long term capital gains. The AO accordingly, treated the Manoj Kumar, Bangalore Page 5 of 6 entire sale consideration of Rs.39,54,750/- from the sale of shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd as unexplained

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, \nthere can be no protective assessment.” \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the entire protective addition \nof Rs.86,95,409/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a \nsubstantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and \nneeds to be deleted. \n\nIn any case

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

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