ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

Unexplained cash credits in cash book 2010-11 6. Net income from real estate - sale of timber 97,99,000 70,00,000 - May/June 2009 not accounted in books 27,99,000 Grand total 5,03,80,530 5,03,80,530 4.1 However, in response to the AO's notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14/10/2010, requiring

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

disallowance in the order of assessment would not automatically warrant the penal provisions, consequently the penalty imposed by the learned A.O. deserves to be cancelled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied is excessive and liable to be reduced substantially. 6. For the above and other

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

disallowance in the order of assessment would not automatically warrant the penal provisions, consequently the penalty imposed by the learned A.O. deserves to be cancelled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied is excessive and liable to be reduced substantially. 6. For the above and other

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)

disallowing the 30% expenditure of Rs. 1,70,850/-, the agricultural income gets reduced and the amount becomes unexplained cash credit

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 credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee had not raised any dispute with regard to the disallowance

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

unexplained cash credit is unsustainable in the\ngiven facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the\nassessee is hereby allowed.\n26.3 As the assessee succeeded on technical ground, we do not find\nnecessary to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merit\nof the addition. As such, the same become redundant. Hence, we\ndismiss the same

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant’s claim, being in clear violation of RBI directives, deserves to be disallowed

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash credit. The AO further submitted that the assessee has claimed that the transaction was carried through banking channel however no bank account was submitted to verify the claim. Even assuming, the transaction was carried out through banking channel, but it does not absolve the assessee for discharging its burden of proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

NIKSHEP INFRA PROJECTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

Unexplained Cash Credits U/s 68 without considering the details furnished by the Appellant and without giving adequate opportunity. 5). The Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that the Assessing officer had arbitrarily disallowed