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

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

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

PRAMOD BASAVARAJ ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MYSURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

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

house property in the form of rental income and from business by conducting English speaking classes. The assessee filed the return of income for the captioned assessment year declaring total income of Rs. 6,33,250.00 only. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization

MANDYAM KRISHNAKUMAR SATHYANARAYANA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

house property of Rs. 1,42,847/-, Commission Income & Consultancy receipts declared as professional income u/s 44ADA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,71,500 (being 50% of gross receipts of Rs. 7,43,000/-). The gross total income of the assessee worked out to Rs. 5,14,347/- and assessee claimed deduction

SHANTHA RAVINDRA ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shantha Ravindra, Vs. Ito, No.2998, Krs Road, Yadavagiri, Ward – 1(3). Mysuru – 57020. Pan : Bfjpr 6898 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024

House Property’ and ‘Income from Other Sources”. The assessment was selected for scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization

RENUKAMBA,BANGALORE URBEN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU URBAN

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

house property. The assessee has one, Mr. K. Shivakumar, who is a tax consultant, who filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He has also filed a response before the ld. CIT(A). The tax consultant was not a professionally qualified accountant and was not conversant with the appeal before the Tribunal. He was also suffering from prolonged illness

ASHWINI YOGANANDA, REP. BY MR. NAVIN YOGANANDA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Ashwini Yogananda, Ito (International Taxation), Vs. Rep. By Mr. Navin Yogananda, Ward – 1(2), 1 Sree Kanteshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru. Basaaraj Layout, Byrathi, Bengaluru – 560 077. Pan : Aphpa 0244 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 O R D E R

property, she has gifted a sum of Rs.23 lakhs to the assessee. For some unavoidable reasons, the above said amount was kept by way of cash in the house and the assessee was living abroad. When the demonetization

REDDIVARI SUBBA REDDY(HUF),BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BELLAY

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Reddivari Subba Reddy (Huf), Vs. Ito, D.No.44, Behind Maremma Temple, Ward – 2, Kappagal Road, Near Hdfc Bank, Bellary. Bellary – 583 103. Pan : Aaohr 4185 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

demonetization period. Based on the information, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee dated 19.09.2019. In response, assessee submitted letter along with property details and bank accounts and stated that there is no income generated in the status of HUF during the year 2014 and assessee’s agricultural land was compulsorily acquired by KIADB, Bellary to the extent

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, being the vacant site No. 1, K. Narayanapura Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore for the purpose of construction of a residential house thereon. During the FY 2016-17 had withdrawn significant sums of money by way of cash from his business for the purpose of meeting the costs of construction, particularly labour, and expenses which mostly have

PALAPETTY VELAPPAN SHAKTHIDARAN,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), NASHIK

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

house property. For the assessment\nyear under consideration, the assessee filed the return of income\ndeclaring a total income of ₹3,87,620/- which comprises of Income from\nhouse property of Rs. 1,42,847/-, Commission Income & Consultancy\nreceipts declared as professional income u/s 44ADA of the Act to the\ntune of Rs. 3,71,500 (being 50% of gross

SMT. HIRESAVE VISHAKANTEGOWDA SUJITHA,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2, HASSAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Hiresave Vishakantegowda Sujatha, Vs. Ward-2, #666 Shankaramata Road, Hassan-573 201. 2Nd Cross, Kr Puram Hassan Block, Hassan-573201. Pan – Arsps 6347 M Appellant Respondent

demonetization period for Rs. 20,21,000/- into the bank account of the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving income under the head ‘income from house property

SUDHA BABU RANJITHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

house property, business income and income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was Page 2 of 4 specifically asked to assessee for substantiating towards cash deposits during the demonetization

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and other sources. The case was reopened u/s. 147 by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2019 after the prior approval of the PCIT, Bangalore. The assessee replied on 13.5.2019 reiterating the original return. The reasons were provided to the assessee on 28.5.2019 which was objected to by the assessee on 18.6.2019 and the objections were disposed

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and other sources. The case was reopened u/s. 147 by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2019 after the prior approval of the PCIT, Bangalore. The assessee replied on 13.5.2019 reiterating the original return. The reasons were provided to the assessee on 28.5.2019 which was objected to by the assessee on 18.6.2019 and the objections were disposed

DAREKOPPA KRISHNAIAHSHETTY KESHA vs. HETTY,BANGALOREVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

house property, business income from catering & financial services and income from other sources. For the Asst. year 2017-18 under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 2.11.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.21,65,740/-. Subsequently, on the very same day the assessee had also filed the revised return

VEERANNA MURTHY RAGHAVENDRA DEEKSHITH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House Property of Rs.3,90,981/- and Income from Profits and Gains of Business of Rs. 15,47,216/-. The assessee is a wholesale and retail distributor of Cadbury products manufactured by M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited for the entire region of North Bangalore. The distribution process carried out by the assessee entails order booking & delivery/ distribution

MANJULA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18 Manjula No.10/10, 3Rd Main Road Chikka Adugodi Ito Bangalore 560 029 Vs. Ward 7(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore

house property during the year and the same was submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings which is not taken cognizance off by the AO. Manjula, Bangalore `Page 2 of 4 * 4. The AO has erred in applying the provisions of S. 144 of the Act while all the details sought during the assessment proceedings were submitted

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