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

money. Since during the coure of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposits even after providing multiple opportunities. the source of the same remains unexplained and assessee did not furnish business activity carried out of which cash deposits were made. Hence the contention of the assessee that amount deposited out of her business activity

SURAJ ALWANDI,HUBLI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBLI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved

SURAJ ALWANDI,HUBLI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBLI, HUBLI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved

SURAJ ALWANDI,HUBLI-DHARWAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBLI, HUBLI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. IT(IT)A No.3124/Bang/2025 Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru Page 8 of 24 4.4 Further, with regard to issue of interest on bonds, the AO observed that the assessee was claiming a sum of Rs.27,30,000/- as exempt income. During

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

money on protective basis as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and deleted by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order at para 8.7 thereof cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the grounds (i) and (ii) raised by Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeals

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

money to assessee. Being so, there is no infirmity in the order of ITA Nos.309 to 313 & 1494 to 1497/Bang/2018 Page 25 of 52 CIT(A). The same is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the revenue in both the AYs is dismissed. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM on JCB (AY 2008-09 to 2012-13) 68. The assessee claimed depreciation

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

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

money. Since during the coure of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposits even after providing multiple opportunities. the source of the same remains unexplained and assessee did not furnish business activity carried out of which cash deposits were made. Hence the contention of the assessee that amount deposited out of her business activity

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

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