SHRI V RAJESH KUMAR ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. V. Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sha Phoolchand Vijayraj, Ward – 1, Head Post Office Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga. Pan : Abopr 2336 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019

unexplained cash credits and Rs.3,678/- as income from share trading. 2.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date i.e., 31.12.2013 in respect of the aforesaid addition. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter, the AO proceeded

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

credited to my bank account. 9.3 The ld. AO not agreeing with the above contention of the assessee, he made addition towards the cash deposit at Rs.80,91,500/-. Consequently, he levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said amount. Now the contention of the ld. A.R. is that Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 5.9 No explanation was offered by the appellant in respect of the above additions during this proceeding despite several notices and opportunities provided. Therefore, the additions made i.e. Rs.5 Lakh and Rs.3 1,32,000/-for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively were

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 5.9 No explanation was offered by the appellant in respect of the above additions during this proceeding despite several notices and opportunities provided. Therefore, the additions made i.e. Rs.5 Lakh and Rs.3 1,32,000/-for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively were

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained cash credits of Rs.31,80,000/-. The Ld.AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained cash credits of Rs.31,80,000/-. The Ld.AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

u/s 68. (5) CIT v. Arunananda Textiles (P.) Ltd. [2011] 203 Taxman 32 (Mag.)/15 taxmann.com 226 (Kar.) It was not for the Assessee to place material before the Assessing Officer about creditworthiness of the shareholders. Once the company had given the addresses of the shareholder and their identity was not in dispute, it was for the Assessing Officer

M/S. K.N.R ROFFING PVT LTD.,,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, TUMKUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Membe Assessment Year : 2015-16

unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee. Therefore, the opening balances cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. The additional evidence sought to be filed by the Assessee before CIT(A) was to prove its case that opening balances cannot be added and also to explain the correct quantum of credit purchases during

SHREE SHARANAVASACESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NI HALINGALI,HALINGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

271(1)(c) of the Act. Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Page 4 of 7 8. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. We have heard rival submissions perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the claim of deduction under section

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

credited into the bank without appreciating the fact that the AO has not 6. caused the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2019 and further no Assessment order was passed on the basis of the Notice u/s 148 of the Act said to have been issued on 30-03-2019. Page

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

credited into the bank without appreciating the fact that the AO has not 6. caused the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2019 and further no Assessment order was passed on the basis of the Notice u/s 148 of the Act said to have been issued on 30-03-2019. Page

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash entries. The AO had added the said amounts in the A.Y. 2013-14 since the husband of the assessee died on 24/04/2013 and also the assessee had written the sheets based on the information given by her deceased husband. The AO also proposed to impose the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As against the said order

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash entries. The AO had added the said amounts in the A.Y. 2013-14 since the husband of the assessee died on 24/04/2013 and also the assessee had written the sheets based on the information given by her deceased husband. The AO also proposed to impose the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As against the said order

SRI PANCHAMAL GANESH SHENOY (HUF) ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs.7,10,000/-. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the notice dated 23/3/2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of The Income tax Act was bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by stating that the Appeal filed

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

unexplained cash credit.\n7. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not considering the\nexplanation of the Appellant with respect to cash deposits into his account;\nthereby the Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in ignoring\nsubmissions clearly justifying cash deposits;\n8. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO has erred

SMT. ANASUYA BASI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

credited? 8. The reasons for lending the amount of Rs.17,10,000/- without any interest? The above clarification was sought from the assessee’s representative during the course of scrutiny hearing and till date the above questions was neither answered in the explanation dt.17.8.2010 nor answered till date. Since the assessee has furnished inadequate and inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271