M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

disallowance of depreciation on luxury cars and an addition for unexplained investment. The disallowance was based on the statement of the Managing

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

investments ofassessee within meaning of section 69. 7. Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (2018-TIOL-2326- HC-MAD-IT) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. GLOBAL TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

disallowance for this year too. Accordingly\nground No.2 of the appeal is allowed.\n\n50. Ground no 3 is dismissed as not pressed.\n\n51. Ground No.4 is with respect to upholding the addition of Rs.10 crores\nby the ld. CIT(A) as unexplained investment

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 and 54F. 13. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with Tribunal, challenging the addition of Rs. 1,49,41,000/- made by the AO as later confirmed by ld. CIT(A) with regard to unexplained investment

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 32. This addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who decided this addition as per para 15 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) extracted the balance sheet and account of the parties from page 76 to 100 of the appellate order. He held that there is no disallowance

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

unexplained and added the same u/s. 69 of the Act to the returned total income of Rs. 10,62,390/-. He submitted that the learned assessing officer has not disputed about the value of investments of Rs. 1,42,25,000 in residential house and investment in Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds (REC Bonds) and National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

disallowance for this year too. Accordingly\nground No.2 of the appeal is allowed.\n50. Ground no 3 is dismissed as not pressed.\n51. Ground No.4 is with respect to upholding the addition of Rs.10 crores\nby the ld. CIT(A) as unexplained investment

SMT. BHARGAVI GOPINATH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly\nallowed

unexplained investment under section\n69 of the Act which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT-A.\n8.1\nUpon analyzing the facts discussed above, primarily it appears\nthat the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it as far as\nthe source of cash deposits in the bank account is concerned. However,\nbefore we proceed further

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Unexplained investment u/s 69B\nTotal\nRs.80 lakhs\nRs.4 lakhs\nRs.84 lakhs.\n3.1\nAccording to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose\nslips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that\nthe said loose slips reads as follows:\nITBA/AST/M/153A/2019-20/1023248118(1)\nRabs: 125,000/ Cong.\n(Paid 95,00,000/-\nBclamce Dmart\nmoth\n68\n3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted

RAJIV VENKATPATHI GOWDA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had disallowed the payment of premium to LIC on the ground