SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

property which is registered in the name of assessee and not accounted for and hence does not come under the purview of Section 69 of the Act. 7. ADDITION OF RS. 2,30,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. Sri. Rajendran, whose statements u/s 132(4) are relied upon by the AO, has retracted these statements

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

property meant for construction of residential house and also the assessee was not able to demonstrate what are the circumstances provoked the assessee in not constructing new house during the stipulated period. Hence, in our opinion, the ld. AO is justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act and charging the same to tax. This

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

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

House Property” was\nless than the rent shown in the rent agreement furnished by him. On\nbeing questioned, the assessee could not provide any satisfactory\nexplanation or reconciliation for the difference. The AO, therefore,\ncomputed the understatement of rental income at 89,840/- and added\nthe same to the total income.\n19. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) upheld

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

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

property could be substantiated at Rs.57,75,000/- and concluded that the assessee had tried to introduce his unexplained money in the garb of sale consideration and avoided paying tax on the same by claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee had utilized the differential amount of Rs.1,42,25,000/- for construction of house

KANAKAPURA VENKATARAMANASWAMY MADHUSUDHAN KARTHIK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, RAMAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA.

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Page 2 of 11 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring taxable income at Rs. 14,48,340/- consisting of income from house property

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

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

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 5.1 Further, with regard to cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.9,28,000/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the source of cash deposits are from Poly House Consultancy and the assessee has also submitted the details of consultancy fees received from 3 parties totaling Rs.12,23,000/-. Further

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

GANGADHARAPPA MUNINDRA KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

property in the absence of sanction of Bank loan in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the entire addition of Rs.1,45,94,000/- as unexplained moneys uf/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that the Appellant had repaid the borrowed funds once the Bank loan

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 11.1 The assessee has explained that the impugned cash deposits represent the return of advances earlier given for purchase of property and construction of a house

SRI. MARALA REDDY SREENIVAS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

Properties: Rs.2,00,00,000 My own return of income: Rs.15,00,000” 2.1 However, as the assessee failed to offer the income in his return and also failed to explain whether the same was considered in his return of income and accordingly, the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was added to his income for the year under consideration. Further