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

In the result the ITA No

CASH\" on the issue of cash deposits during demonetization period\". It\nwould indicate that the case was selected for scrutiny but for the issue of cash deposit during\ndemonetization, this mention of the issue would indicate that it was for a limited purpose of\nscrutinizing the cash deposits during demonetization. Its scope for making other additions\nwould only be enlarged

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

cash deposits during demonetisation and low income in comparison to high loan/advances/ investments appearing in the balance sheet and other issues. 4. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) where the AO after verifying the various details submitted by the asse concluded the assessment by making a disallowance

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

deposits in bank account of Rs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which remains 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

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

cash deposited during demonetization period. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no case here for making the addition as unexplained u/s.68. In view of this discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).” 8.2 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

cash deposited during demonetization period. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no case here for making the addition as unexplained u/s.68. In view of this discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).” 8.2 The Co-ordinate Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha

NANJAPPA UMASHANKER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

deposited was from out of the opening cash balance as well as the cash withdrawals made during the pre demonetization period, as evidenced by the cash book produced by the assessee, no interference was called for with the findings arrived by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had deleted the disallowance

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU 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

deposits in bank account of\nRs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which\nremains unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the\nfinancial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest\npaid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses\nclaimed as interest paid

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

deposits in bank account of\nRs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which\nremains unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, from the\nfinancial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,15,39000 as interest\npaid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses\nclaimed as interest paid

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

cash deposits of Rs. 2,49,800/- instead of net income as the Appellant has claimed expenditure being Interest expenses in the Return of Income . Hence only net income should have been added. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred in both on facts and in law in confirming in not considering

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

cash deposits of Rs. 2,49,800/- instead of net income as the Appellant has claimed expenditure being Interest expenses in the Return of Income . Hence only net income should have been added. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred in both on facts and in law in confirming in not considering

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

cash deposits of Rs. 2,49,800/- instead of net income as the Appellant has claimed expenditure being Interest expenses in the Return of Income . Hence only net income should have been added. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred in both on facts and in law in confirming in not considering

CHIRAG AGENCIES,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance made by the AO is only Rs.8,40,740/- which is 2.25% of the total cash deposits made during

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 deposited during the demonetization period. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed at the income at Rs.10,55,220/- by making addition of Rs.57,100/-towards disallowance

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

cash deposit in SBNs during demonetisation from trade debtors formed part of revenue from operation and therefore has not made any further disallowance

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

cash deposits. This is in contravention of the powers under section 251(l)(a) of the Act which restricts only, confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling the assessment but not modifying the provision of law qua the item of which the assessment was made. 9. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred by upholding the unsecured loans

VANISHREE HOLABSU SHETTAR,GULEDGUDD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

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

cash deposited during demonetization period. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.18,21,581/- after disallowing

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 deposited during demonetization period, large deduction claimed u/s. 80P and interest income from investments. The assessee furnished the details called for on the basis of which the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act by disallowing

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

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

disallowed. 16. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 25 of 32 17. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a credit co-operative society dealing only with its members and that during the demonetisation period, the cash deposited

MR. ARIF HUSSAIN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Arif Hussain, #35, 5Th Main, The Income Kauser Nagar, Tax Officer, R.T. Nagar, Ward -6(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 032. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Abgph8458N Appellant Respondent

cash deposited in SBN noted during the relevant Assessment Year under consideration of Rs.14,55,000/- u/s. 69. The Ld.AO also disallowed