SHRUTHI KISHORE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, despite the appellant's clear explanation that the amount was received as wedding gifts. Wedding gifts are exempt under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. No contrary evidence was brought on record by the AO to challenge the appellant's claim. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) wrongly directed the Learned

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

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTDE ,CHIKKAMANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKAMAGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation. The learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal on merits as the assessee did not respond to the notices or submitted supporting documents justifying the cash deposits in the bank. 10.1 Now, before us, the learned AR submitted

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

In the result the ITA No

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

money. Since during the coure of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposits even after providing multiple opportunities. the source of the same remains unexplained and assessee did not furnish business activity carried out of which cash deposits were made. Hence the contention of the assessee that amount deposited out of her business activity

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment proceedings, the source of investment of Rs. 3,84,000/- remains unexplained and accordingly added to the total income as unexplained money

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. IT(IT)A No.3124/Bang/2025 Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru Page 8 of 24 4.4 Further, with regard to issue of interest on bonds, the AO observed that the assessee was claiming a sum of Rs.27,30,000/- as exempt income. During

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

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

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

ARIF HUSSAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1 On or before completion of assessment proceeding the AO also initiated penalty proceedings by observing that since the assessee has not furnished the return of income for AY 2017-18, despite having taxable income from business, the assessee has mis-reported the income resulting in under reporting of income and accordingly, penalty

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

In the result the ITA No

reassess\nsuch income, other than the income involving matters which are the\nsubject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable\nto tax and has escaped assessment.]\n\nExplanation 1.—Production28 before the Assessing Officer of account\nbooks or other evidence from which material evidence could with due\ndiligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will

E ASHWATH NARAYAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. iii) Entire consideration received from the sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/- assessed as undisclosed LTCG by treating the cost of acquisition deemed to be NIL. 9.1 Further, on going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 04/03/2023, we also take a note of the fact that

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act under the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant's case.\n4. The CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the tax imposed under\nthe provisions of section 115BBE at the rate of 60% under the facts and\nin the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n5. Without prejudice to the right

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained money u/s.\n69A of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the\nappellant's case.\n4. The CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the tax imposed under\nthe provisions of section 115BBE at the rate of 60% under the facts and\nin the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n5. Without prejudice to the right

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

unexplained money towards alleged advance made by assessee in cash to M/s. Shivan & Co. is without any valid seized material. 9.1 The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the AO has relied upon loose sheets, unsigned entries in note books to hold that the assessee has advanced loan in cash which is unaccounted. The loose sheets, scribbled note books