MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

MR. M.N. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

MR. M. A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

property and loan repaid by Abdul Gaffur. Second gift claimed in this year is of Rs. 15 Lacs claimed to have been received from sister Khadeejamma. About this gift, the findings of the AO are on page 56 of the assessment order but the findings are vague. The AO has noted that initially the amount was transferred from har BUCB

SANDEEP REDDY YARABAKA CHENCHU,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

deposited unexplained cash to bank account due to demonetization. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 3.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has been earning rental income from house property

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

house property, income from other sources and it is to be noted that the income from profit & gains only offered u/s 44AD of the Act. The other incomes not fall u/s 44AD of the Act. There are various inflow and outflow to the bank account from other sources of income also. Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

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

house property and other sources. The assessee has been maintaining books of account for the business carried on and the same is also subject to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. 2.2 For the year under appeal, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 27/10/2017 declaring a total loss of Rs.25,25,971/- from the aforesaid sources

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

house property and other sources. The assessee has been maintaining books of account for the business carried on and the same is also subject to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. 2.2 For the year under appeal, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 27/10/2017 declaring a total loss of Rs.25,25,971/- from the aforesaid sources

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

property on which the assessee had proposed to construct a residential house in connection with which the cash withdrawals were originally made etc., The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has however declined to accept the submissions of the assessee on the grounds that the cash held on hand was too distinct in time from the date of deposit

KAMAL KOTHARI ,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kamal Kothari, Vs. Ito, Prop: M/S. B. L. Bankers, Ward – 1, M. G. Road, Ramnagar. Channapatna – 562 160. Pan : Bcgpk 1898 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2023

house property, commission income and income from other sources for A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. For earning such type of income there is no requirement of keeping huge cash in hand. Further from perusal of capital account, it is seen that cash in hand on last day of the financial year has never been so huge. This