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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

cash since the vendor of the tea is required to be paid off on a weekly basis and this Page 17 of 34 was the preferred mode of payment in the nature of the supply of tea, by vendors who did not have a permanent place of business. D. The appellant has made oral submission and also relied upon decisions

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act and (ii) disallowance of depreciation on helicopter amounting to Rs.4,01,46,737. On appeal

M/S ROAD LINKS INDIA PVT, LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

depreciation of Rs.25,57,780; as against the returned income at Nil; in view of the addition of Rs.28,58,070 on account of unexplained cash credits

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

In the result the ITA No

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which is extracted hereunder :- “ 3.16 The facts narrated above, it is apportionate to examine the merit of the issue as below :- i) The appellant furnished a copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 and from it statement

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

credits u/s. 68.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the order passed must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263 of the Act, has held primarily that:- i. The assessing officer has not made enquiries

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation as on 31-03-2016. If the impugned investment of Rs. 22,75,000 had in fact been accounted for and disclosed in the return of income for the year under consideration as claimed by the assessee, the opening and closing balances of assets in the subsequent year ought to have been substantially higher. However, the balances reflected