SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay, the issue on merit of the additions is covered by the judgement of coordinate bench in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services Ltd. in ITA No.375/Bang/2022 dated 15.9.2022, wherein held as under: “7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly the assessee has deposited Rs.298,08,080/- during

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

condonation petition stating that the ld. CIT(A)’s order passed on 18.10.2022 and the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal on 1.3.2023. Thus, there was a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and the computation of delay by Tribunal at 74 days is incorrect. She submitted that either date of receipt

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

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

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

cash deposits apart from the submissions already made. Hence, it took some time to the assessee to collate the information and documentary evidence to file the appeal. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 286 days. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Honourable Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) Hubli has erred both on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That the order under section

NALLURPALLI UNNIKRISHNAN SRINIVAS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. N. U. Srinivas, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop: Shree Ayyappa Tourist, Income-Tax, No.646, Muniyappa Building, Circle – 6(3)(1), Kiadb Road, Jalahalli Cross, Bengaluru. T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Adbps 8802 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-6, Bengaluru, Dated 31.01.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: Page 2 Of 11

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. In course of hearing on merit of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that as per ground Nos.2.1 to 2.4, this is the grievance of the assessee that the AO was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee at Rs.60 lakhs as against

RAMZAN MULLA,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

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

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

cash deposits made by the assessee, received from their aged close relatives on the ground that the assessee cannot deposit others money into his bank account. 4. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 102 days. 5. The assessee submitted the medical records and prayed to condone

AMRUTUR NINGAIAH GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

cash deposited in the bank account in the SBN of Rs. 24,91,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 2.3 On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that no details were filed and no explanations were provided neither before the Ld.AO nor Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee

SMT GANGAMBIKE ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Gangambike, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, No. B-4, 6Th Block, Ward – 3[2][3], Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore. Ullalu Upanagara, Bangalore – 560 110. Pan : Akwpg 8220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Guruprasad B. L, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2018

condone the delay of 24 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal is admitted for consideration and disposal. ORDER 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee, engaged in saree business, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 21.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3

APPASAB AVADANNA LAVATE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned. 10. Coming to the facts on merits of the case, I find that assessee is an agriculturist, sugarcane grower, received money from the Indian Sugar Manufacturing Co. Ltd. on sale of sugarcane which was deposited by him in Syndicate Bank and then withdrawn in cash

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

cash deposits made in the bank account of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 11,26,320/ - were from loans and money received by his brother on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

cash deposits - Rs.14,40,130/- (v) Unexplained credit card payments - Rs.4,18,200/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 15/3/2013 for asst. year 2010-11, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore which was belatedly filed by 323 days. The assessee filed a separate application for condonation of the aforesaid delay

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

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

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

condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and proceed for hearing on merits. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authorities erred in holding that the assessee could not transact in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and further erred in treating the cash deposits