VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

cash deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded which is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found during the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of recording reasons for initiating assessment

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

cash deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded which is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found during the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of recording reasons for initiating assessment

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

cash deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded which is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found during the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of recording reasons for initiating assessment

NEPAL SINGH RATHOD (HUF),HUBLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

cash book was shown as 178,74,731 and as per the break-up of SBN, the assessee had deposited Rs.61.15 lakhs in Rs.1000 denomination and Rs.78.16 lakhs in Rs.500 denomination. These submissions are duly verified and accepted as per AO’s order. Given this, we see no merit in the inference of the PCIT that the deposits are made

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of theassessee is at Sl. No.06 where the amount appearing is Rs.1,49,42,000/- is appearing and it is included in the total disclosuremade by Shri. D. S. Nandish. It clearly shows that for recording reasons for escapement of income on the basis of survey material, there is escapement

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

cash deposited in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. As the notice u/s. 263 is issued against the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act, the scope of verification cannot exceed the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Ld.PCIT in the present facts proceeded to enquire on an issue which is not covered under the reasons recorded for reopening

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

cash book was shown as 178,74,731 and as per the break-up of SBN, the assessee had deposited Rs.61.15 lakhs in Rs.1000 denomination and Rs.78.16 lakhs in Rs.500 denomination. These submissions are duly verified and accepted as per AO’s order. Given this, we see no merit in the inference of the PCIT that the deposits are made

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

cash book was shown as 178,74,731 and as per the break-up of SBN, the assessee had deposited Rs.61.15 lakhs in Rs.1000 denomination and Rs.78.16 lakhs in Rs.500 denomination. These submissions are duly verified and accepted as per AO’s order. Given this, we see no merit in the inference of the PCIT that the deposits are made

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposit. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in business through proprietary concern in the name of M/s Kumar Traders. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income and declared business income under section 44AD of the Act. As such the assessee, declared turnover of Rs. 56,62,174/- on which offered income

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposit. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in business through proprietary concern in the name of M/s Kumar Traders. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income and declared business income under section 44AD of the Act. As such the assessee, declared turnover of Rs. 56,62,174/- on which offered income

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposit. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in business through proprietary concern in the name of M/s Kumar Traders. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income and declared business income under section 44AD of the Act. As such the assessee, declared turnover of Rs. 56,62,174/- on which offered income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI.H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deposit of Rs. 82,64,280/-. (iv) The CIT A has rightly deleted this addition based on undisputed facts. 44. We have heard both the parties. As discussed in AY 2008-09, this issue is remitted to the AO to examine the cash flow statement for the relevant financial year. UNDISCLOSED ELECTION RELATED RECEIPTS: 45. The AO based

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deposit of Rs. 82,64,280/-. (iv) The CIT A has rightly deleted this addition based on undisputed facts. 44. We have heard both the parties. As discussed in AY 2008-09, this issue is remitted to the AO to examine the cash flow statement for the relevant financial year. UNDISCLOSED ELECTION RELATED RECEIPTS: 45. The AO based

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deposit of Rs. 82,64,280/-. (iv) The CIT A has rightly deleted this addition based on undisputed facts. 44. We have heard both the parties. As discussed in AY 2008-09, this issue is remitted to the AO to examine the cash flow statement for the relevant financial year. UNDISCLOSED ELECTION RELATED RECEIPTS: 45. The AO based

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deposit of Rs. 82,64,280/-. (iv) The CIT A has rightly deleted this addition based on undisputed facts. 44. We have heard both the parties. As discussed in AY 2008-09, this issue is remitted to the AO to examine the cash flow statement for the relevant financial year. UNDISCLOSED ELECTION RELATED RECEIPTS: 45. The AO based

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deposit of Rs. 82,64,280/-. (iv) The CIT A has rightly deleted this addition based on undisputed facts. 44. We have heard both the parties. As discussed in AY 2008-09, this issue is remitted to the AO to examine the cash flow statement for the relevant financial year. UNDISCLOSED ELECTION RELATED RECEIPTS: 45. The AO based