SRI. THIMMAISH SRINIVAS ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.10,12,400/- and taxed the same under income from other sources which was disclosed as agricultural income in the statement of computation. The addition was made on the ground that crop details were missing for this agricultural income even though the assessee had submitted the Pahani. (2) Cash deposits treated as unexplained money

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

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

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

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

AVINASH ARADHYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

money under section 69A of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. . Page 10 of 17 12. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,77,752/- under section 69A of the Act on account of gold jewelry found during search

INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIJAYAPUR vs. VIKRAM DALICHAND BANDARI , VIJAYAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

unexplained Money. 8.2 The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC however deleted the impugned addition with the following observations/reasons:- (i) The assessee submitted the party wise break up of purchases, corresponding cash sales, bank account statements. The AO neither rejected the books of A/c nor doubted the purchases made by the assessee. Since the purchases were accepted, the AO could not disallow

SHRISHIL DHULAPPA HONAVAD ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,761/- and treating the same as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. Page 2 of 9 1,15,943/- and agricultural income

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 money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

money\nhas been paid over and above the registration amount. The appellant has\nsubmitted plethora of evidence in support of his claim and proved his\ngenuineness. Therefore, the addition made by the AO regarding unexplained\ninvestment of Rs.27,00,000/- is hereby deleted. In view of the above discussion\nground no. 4may be treated as allowed.\"\n13.\nBeing aggrieved

LUV JIT JALAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ailpj5661P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits into the bank account is the funds received from appellant's father and thus the addition made needs to be deleted under the facts & circumstances of the case. c) The action of the learned assessing officer in holding

BETHEL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ASSOCIATION ,KOPPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act from undisclosed sources and added to the income of the assessee. We are of the opinion that in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022, the assessee had filed its Return of income in ITR-7 on 12.5.2022 declaring Rs.1,12,19,527/- as gross receipts/aggregate of income. The copy

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, 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

M/S. SRI AMBHRINEE VIDYESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA ,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

disallowance of deduction 80Pof the Act. The grounds No.1 and 2 are, thus, dismissed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. AR before us reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee is registered under Karnataka Souharda

VALARAM SURESH KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the act. 2.2 The Ld.AO out of the remaining credits amounting to Rs.46,71,000/- considered it to be out of business activity and made an adhoc disallowance

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

SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

unexplained money under Sections 68/69A of the Act solely on the ground that they were accepted after the announcement of demonetization. 15.4 However, it is important to note that the assessee has an obligation to substantiate the source of the money received during the demonetization period. In the present case, the assessee has claimed that the cash in SBNs were

SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

unexplained money under Sections 68/69A of the Act solely on the ground that they were accepted after the announcement of demonetization. 15.4 However, it is important to note that the assessee has an obligation to substantiate the source of the money received during the demonetization period. In the present case, the assessee has claimed that the cash in SBNs were