K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

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

unexplained cash credits. The addition cannot be sustained\non first principles, and the only legally permissible conclusion\nis that the same deserves to be deleted in full.\n29.\nThe facts shows that the AO has accepted the genuineness\nof the face value ₹100 each, aggregating to ₹9,40,300, towards\nissue of 9,403 Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs)\nand

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

unexplained cash credits. The addition cannot be sustained\non first principles, and the only legally permissible conclusion\nis that the same deserves to be deleted in full.\n29.\nThe facts shows that the AO has accepted the genuineness\nof the face value ₹100 each, aggregating to ₹9,40,300, towards\nissue of 9,403 Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs)\nand

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

unexplained cash credits. The addition cannot be sustained\non first principles, and the only legally permissible conclusion\nis that the same deserves to be deleted in full.\n29.\nThe facts shows that the AO has accepted the genuineness\nof the face value ₹100 each, aggregating to ₹9,40,300, towards\nissue of 9,403 Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs)\nand

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

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

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by making additions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 4 Rs.4,24,910 1961 for non-deduction of TDS under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays for leave to add, modify

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

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

unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee, hence existence of books of an assessee is a condition precedent before an addition under Section 68 can be made but in my case I have declared income -u/ s.44AD and not maintained any books of accounts (this is also said in the assessment order against which I am appealing

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

unexplained cash credits without appreciating that these deposits were explainable. The audit report also were submitted to show the genuine transaction, accordingly, the addition made has to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice, the income as sustained was excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged under section 234A

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

delay in filing the appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Addition of Rs.10,29,455/- as unexplained cash credit a) The ld.AO erred in disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs.10,29,455/- on sale of ITA Nos.1767 & 1768(B)/2019 Page 3 of 13 shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., under the facts

SRI. RAFFI BAIG,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee's and Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Year 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Unexplained cash credit : Rs.23,50,000. (ii) Unproved Liability : Rs.1,50,000. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05 dt.28.12.2006, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – VI, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) vide order dt.18.10.2009 dismissed the assessee's appeal by declining to condone the delay

M/S SAISRI POWER PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2650/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Saisri Power Projects & Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6[1][1], No.81, Plot No.5D, Bangalore. Sushobit Residency, 2Nd Block 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore – 560 079. Pan : Aancs 3278 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Inder Solanki, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is admitted for hearing and adjudication. ORDER 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee company, engaged in business of power and energy, filed its return for Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. M/S. MANASA MEDICALS, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of selling pharmaceutical products. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 23.9.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,70,210. The case was selected for scrutiny for the purpose of verification of “large value of cash deposits during demonetisation

SMT KUSHALAPPA SAVITRI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to sustaining addition u/s. 68 of the Act as follows:- (i) Unexplained cash deposit 1,00,00,000 (ii) Advance received received from Shri Venkatesh 75,00,000 Gowda. (iii) Advance received from Shri Rajanna

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 when all ingredients contemplated under section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors and genuineness of transactions. Moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided. (Ground no. 4(iv), 4(v) and 4(vi), page no. 11 of Paper Book of Appeal

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act and thereby the AO concluded the assessment proceedings ex-parte under section 144 of the Act. 7.1 Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act and accordingly the AO passed an order under section 154 on 03.09.2021 by rejecting the request for rectification on the ground that