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

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

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

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

BABULAL RAMESHWARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

delay of 334 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. The assessee in the appeal memo has raised several grounds of appeal numbered as Ground Nos. 1 to 9 which are interconnected and effectively pertain to addition made on account of cash deposit

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Cash Deposit of Rs.1,99,00,000/- estimated at 2.5% thereon disregarding the fact that the alleged deposits are relating to the business forming part of the Estate of the Appellant's father and the income relating to the said business is liable to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives and as such the same is liable

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Cash Deposit of Rs.1,99,00,000/- estimated at 2.5% thereon disregarding the fact that the alleged deposits are relating to the business forming part of the Estate of the Appellant's father and the income relating to the said business is liable to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives and as such the same is liable

MR. MUNIYAPPA RAMACHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

cash deposits and made addition u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 4 years, 4 months and 20 days and also filed an application to condone

JOHN D SILVA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

deposited into his bank account. The assessee also enclosed the cash receipts for the cash received by him. The assessee also submitted the other details. The AO visited the premises of the assessee on 04/12/2019 and recorded a statement and sought for the details of the party-wise ledger and other sales invoices. At that time, the assessee had filed

M/S. DEVINDHI CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, , BIJAPURA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

cash deposits. 14. On the other hand, the learned DR before me opposed to condone the delay but also suggested

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

deposit of TDS of Rs.84,099/-\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing\nappeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard\nto delay of 167 days in filing

SIVARAMA KRISHNAIAH GUMPENA,BENGALURU vs. ITO-W-5(3)(2), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

cash deposits and not for other additions only when the OGE was passed by the AO on 27.08.2024 and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld AR also submitted 5 that the delay is not intentional and due to the bonafide belief. Accordingly the ld AR prayed for condonation

JAMBALLI SHIVAPPA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Sri Jamballi Shivappa, Shivamogga Page 9 of 12 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen full time agriculturist and as per the information available, the assessee had deposited substantial cash

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

cash deposits into bank account to the tune of Rs.1,25,30,000/- without considering the Appellant explanation for sources for the same. 6. The A.O. was not correct in not considering the Interest on loan Rs. 1,46,07,000/-paid to lenders, which was claimed in Return of Income filed. 7. The AO was not correct