DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI PETER CADDY , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

unexplained investment on the basis of MOU between Mr. Shanta Kumar (vendor) and the assessee along with Mr. Cherian Abraham (purchaser) which was found and seized during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. The said MOU was seized vide Annexure A/PC-1/5. Except for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, the additions are made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI PETER CADDY , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

unexplained investment on the basis of MOU between Mr. Shanta Kumar (vendor) and the assessee along with Mr. Cherian Abraham (purchaser) which was found and seized during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. The said MOU was seized vide Annexure A/PC-1/5. Except for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, the additions are made by the Assessing Officer

SHRI PETER CADDY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

unexplained investment on the basis of MOU between Mr. Shanta Kumar (vendor) and the assessee along with Mr. Cherian Abraham (purchaser) which was found and seized during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. The said MOU was seized vide Annexure A/PC-1/5. Except for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, the additions are made by the Assessing Officer

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

Unexplained investment in property 94,97,820.00 29,43,820.00 Opening construction cost of residence 5,85,000.00 Opening Yatish Acharya-Loans and advances 17,45,000.00 Opening Debtors 11.66.774.00 34.96.774.00 1,29,94,594.00 Opening cash 5,09, 105.00 2. Stamp duty and registration 3. Addition to capital during the year 45,16,570.00 Geetha N.Rao- wife

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment deposit in HSBC bank account of Rs.2,89,69,406 for both the years. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 64 13. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the validity of reassessment

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment deposit in HSBC bank account of Rs.2,89,69,406 for both the years. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 64 13. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the validity of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

Unexplained investments. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income57, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Unexplained investments u/s 69 – Rs.79,68,350/- The AO erred in invoking section 69 and made an addition of Rs.79,68,350/- on the alleged unaccounted purchases. Firstly, purchases are not investment on which sec 69 can be invoked. Secondly, there is no investment, be it purchases or otherwise so as to warrant an addition. The material relied

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

INVESTMENT OF THE ACT. Mr Sachin Narayan, who has owned up the cash payment made to Vishalakshi devi , is not a man of straw, but a man of substantial means and the same can be verified from his Tax Records with the Revenue. No man will accept the onus of having made such a huge cash payment in an Income

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment on the basis of ITS information which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case and with regard to the denial of carry forward of losses, the learned A.R. vehemently submitted that the denial of losses without verification/ examination to the tune of Rs. 29,34,388/- is erroneous

SRI. H.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

unexplained investment in purchase of property u/s.69B of the Act. 11. The two additions made as above by the AO, were confirmed by the CIT(A) and hence the present appeals by the Assessees. 12. Grounds No. 2 to 6 challenge the validity of initiation of reassessment

SRI. M.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

unexplained investment in purchase of property u/s.69B of the Act. 11. The two additions made as above by the AO, were confirmed by the CIT(A) and hence the present appeals by the Assessees. 12. Grounds No. 2 to 6 challenge the validity of initiation of reassessment

MAHESH LINGAPPA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment is liable to be cancelled. Page 3 of 7 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is in the business of liquor and he had filed the return of income originally disclosing fully and accordingly the 4. assessment as made by applying the provision of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act will not applicable

SHRI.B.H.BASHA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment. He relied on the order of the CIT(A). 15.1 The ld.DR also relied on the following case laws:- 1. Surendra M.Khandhar vs ACIT reported in 224 CTR 409, by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 2. ITO vs Legal heirs of Nazmin Jamal 33 taxmann.com 208, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mum ba. 3. Hazari

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

unexplained investments in construction cannot be sustained. On this issue ld.counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble ITA No.286(Bang/2019 9 Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra) besides placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ambience Developers and Infrastructures Pvt.Ltd

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

unexplained investments in construction cannot be sustained. On this issue ld.counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble ITA No.286(Bang/2019 9 Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra) besides placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ambience Developers and Infrastructures Pvt.Ltd

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

unexplained investment in construction of the hospital building for the year under appeal relying upon the valuation report of the DVO dated 27/11/2014 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant had maintained proper books of accounts along with bills and vouchers in support

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

unexplained investment in construction of the hospital building for the year under appeal relying upon the valuation report of the DVO dated 27/11/2014 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant had maintained proper books of accounts along with bills and vouchers in support