ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

Unexplained cash credits in cash book 2010-11 6. Net income from real estate - sale of timber 97,99,000 70,00,000 - May/June 2009 not accounted in books 27,99,000 Grand total 5,03,80,530 5,03,80,530 4.1 However, in response to the AO's notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14/10/2010, requiring

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

unexplained cash credit by not accepting the fact that the entire 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

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year\nunder consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular\nassessment under section

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year under consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular assessment under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

unexplained cash credit as provided under section 68\nof the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n\n21. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n\n21.1 Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the year\nunder consideration is an unabated assessment year as the regular\nassessment under section

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 when all ingredients contemplated under section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors and genuineness of transactions. Moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided. vii. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had returned majority

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

credit\nbased on other materials available with the AO including income\ndeclared in the return. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the\nassessee’s argument that no addition can be made in the absence of\nincriminating material in the case of unabated/completed assessment\nyear.\n23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee\nis in appeal

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

credit\nbased on other materials available with the AO including income\ndeclared in the return. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the\nassessee’s argument that no addition can be made in the absence of\nincriminating material in the case of unabated/completed assessment\nyear.\n23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee\nis in appeal

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , , BANGALORE

credit \nbased on other materials available with the AO including income \ndeclared in the return. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the \nassessee’s argument that no addition can be made in the absence of \nincriminating material in the case of unabated/completed assessment \nyear. \n23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee \nis in appeal