SHRI. VARADARAJAN NARAYAN AIYAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

194-IA of the Act. Out of the consideration received of Rs.2,12,07,936, Rs.2 crore was received by way of RTGS and balance Rs.12,07,936 was accepted in cash. Taking note of this cash transaction in respect of the transfer of the property, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 269SS

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

194 12 18,88,223 1,65,21,953 11.4 Further, even as per the seized document itself, a substantial portion represents opening balance of earlier year, which cannot be brought to tax in the present assessment year. Thus, we find that the addition has been made purely on assumptions and presumptions, without any supporting evidence. Such an addition cannot

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 201(1A). In our considerate view, the assessee(deductor) gets exonerated from the applicability of TDS provisions on disallowance of the expenditure in question under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This rational is based on the scheme of Section 40(a)(i)/(ia), which is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

194) has held that interest arising from investment made, in compliance with statutory provisions to enable it to carry on banking business, out of reserve fund by a co-operative society engaged in banking business, is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The placement of such funds being imperative for the purpose

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

penalty was to be levied on the tax\nassessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed\nminus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble\nSupreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the\namount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 6. The learned AO is also not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 3 of 12 7. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR, RAICHUR vs. MARALBID PADMAVATHI, RAICHUR

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

penalty U/s. 271(1)(b) for non compliance is initiated.” 3. In pursuance to notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 24.04.2021 which was same as original return under section 139 of the Act. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income – Ta Act.” 5. No contentions were raised with regard to ground Nos. 9 & 10, hence the same are rejected. By Ground Nos. 1 to 5 assessee has raised technical grounds that the AO who passed the assessment order at Madurai did not have inherent and substantive jurisdiction over the assessee

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

penalty\nproceedings under the provisions of section 274 read with section 270A of the Act on the\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.\n13. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the\nappeal