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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. M.N. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. M. A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

money. c) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has grossly ignored that, the entire cash deposits of the year may not be the turnover of particular year, it may contains cash receipts from the credits sales of the earlier years also as well as some are contra entries

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

money was not required, additions under section 68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

money was not required, additions under section 68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

money was not required, additions under section 68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

money was not required, additions under section 68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income