KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

CASH\" on the issue of cash deposits during demonetization period\". It\nwould indicate that the case was selected for scrutiny but for the issue of cash deposit during\ndemonetization, this mention of the issue would indicate that it was for a limited purpose of\nscrutinizing the cash deposits during demonetization. Its scope for making other additions\nwould only be enlarged

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

cash deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded which is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found during the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of recording reasons for initiating assessment

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, purportedly made by Shri D. S. Nandish. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

deposited unaccounted cash into the appellant's bank account. Subsequently, a search operation was conducted. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the assessment under Section 148, alleging escapement of income based on survey and search materials. The appellant challenged the validity of the reassessment

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of the assessee Smt. . Nandish is at Sl. No.16 where the amount appearing is Rs.62,00,000/-, 40,65,500/- Rs.2,49,800/- respectively for the three AYs and it is included in the total disclosure made by Shri. D. S. Nandish during the search proceedings. It clearly shows that

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

cash deposit of Rs.15,81,500/- when the reassessment order was passed by considering the reasons recorded on the facts

VEERANNA MURTHY RAGHAVENDRA DEEKSHITH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

cash deposits are part of the Turnover. Further the ld. AR submitted that the AO has not verified demonetized currency as per the notification/circular issued by the CBDT from time to time. 12. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record

BHAWARLAL S JAIN,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment proceedings the assessee has consistently maintained that the cash deposits represent business receipts arising from such trading activity. 12.1 It is not in dispute

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

DOCKET TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposits, suggesting possible escapement of income. 26.2 Subsequently, on 24.08.2017, a search was purportedly conducted under section 132, not at the assessee’s residential or business premises, but solely at specific bank branches holding accounts in the name of the assessee and some related entities. From these bank accounts, certain cash balances were seized/ transferred to the income tax Department