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)

section that the learned Assessing Officer did not invoke. Moreover, the learned CIT (Appeals) failed to provide adequate justification for applying cash credit provisions when the disallowance pertains to expenditure. Further, considering the agricultural sector is an unorganized one, and given the nature of the Assessee's profession, maintaining comprehensive records of all incurred expenses is extremely challenging. The Assessee

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

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,19,120/-\n3.4 Whereas, while totalling, the loss of House property income\ntreated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of\narriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived at Rs.\n169,49,437/- which is increased by Rs. 318,520/- which is twice\nthe figure of Loss of Rs. 159,260/- because of positive

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

property. In the special facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, it is necessary to hold that the amount utilised by the assessee to purchase the land was in fact utilised for acquiring/constructing a residential house. Without purchasing land the house cannot be constructed. The first step Page 9 of 16 should be the purchase of land. That

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession. 5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made an addition of Rs. 15,56,16,965/- and intangible assets were added

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. The details as asked for during the\ncourser of assessment proceedings were submitted. Thorough\nscrutiny was made by AO and AO has accepted all other\nissues except the aforementioned credits for which the\nnecessary evidence is on record. From the evidence submitted\nit can be seen that each of the creditor is having PAN and\naddress of each

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAAFT6690D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Kincha, CA : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT - Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order dated

MANGILAL,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mangilal, Vs. Ito, Pro: Chagan Agencies, Ward – 2(4), #138, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Apmc Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. Pan : Ackpm 3943 J 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

house property of Rs.25,200/- and income from profit / gains from business / profession was declared at Rs.4,44,067/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued to the assessee. On verification of the financials Page 2 of 8 submitted by the assessee, the loan creditors and trade creditors were observed as under: 3. From the above table

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property by running residential and commercial buildings. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted in the case of Shri Puttaraju on 10.9.2018. At the same time, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried at the residence of present assessee No.25, Royal Hermitage, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

CHANDRA SHEKHAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

house property, income from construction business, income from contract work and income from travel business. The AO also treated the cash credits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO estimated the income of hotel business by taking the profit at 20%. The AO also relied on the show notice issued by the DRI and made

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on additions made amounting to Rs.28,53,193/- as Long-Term Capital Gains as per section 45 of the Act: 4.1 The learned assessing officer and the learned DRP, were not justified in making and addition of Rs.28,53,193/- as Long- Term Capital gains

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

68 or 69 or 69B of the Act. There is severe inconsistency in determining the undisclosed income by ld. AO. This inconsistency has not stopped here. Further, the AO in the body of assessment order invoked the different provisions and at the end while computing the income, invoked different provisions which cannot be upheld. This method of computation of income