KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALAORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A

PRAKASH MALLESHAPPA CHANAL,JAMAKHANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

House Kudchi Road Huunur ITO Jamakhandi 584 119 Vs. Ward-2 Karnataka Bagalkot PAN NO : AUDPC8946L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of Hearing : 05.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against

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

section 69A of the Act. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

House property ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 37 of 155 and Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand. 6. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 15.03.2016 at Room

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties in question were already let ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 6 of 31 out and the appellant and his wife were deriving rental income from them_ The farm-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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

house property and other sources. 7. During the impugned assessment year, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, Davangere had intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-39/P-8055 at Jagalur bus stand, Davangere on 05.02.2021 and on inspection of the vehicle they found that three persons were carrying cash of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- from Gulbarga to Davangere

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,08,814 and the appellant denies its liability to pay such interest.” 2. Ground No.1 is too general in nature, which does not require any adjudication. 3. The crux of ground Nos.2 to 5 is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.23,07,131/- u/s 69A

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

69A could be invoked only when the money / Bullion / Jewellery etc is not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which is not the case in hand on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact