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

In the result the ITA No

deposited cash in the\nimpugned Assessment Year Rs.1,49,42,000/-, During the course of assessment\nproceedings, assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash. From the\napprovalso we noted that for issuance of notice under sections 147/148 of the\nAct, the AO has relied on survey materials found and statement recorded under\nsection

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

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

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the act, dated 29/03/2022, Rs.41,10,000/- deposited into Saraswath Bank was added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the act. 4.2. The Ld.PCIT initiated 263 proceedings against the order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the act for lack of enquiry regarding cash

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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

deposit ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 54 in the bank account of Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur and the basis of this allegation is this that Mr. V. K. Abdul Gaffur does not have the ability to buy the high-end vehicle. In para 7 of the assessment order, these facts are noted

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 deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s\n139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded\nwhich is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found\nduring the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of\nrecording reasons for initiating assessment

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

cash deposited in bank account in his regular return of income u/s\n139 of the Act and the AO had information in the form of statements recorded\nwhich is definite information and corroborated with the bank statement found\nduring the course of survey. In a nutshell we can say that the at the time of\nrecording reasons for initiating assessment

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the assessee’s case was reopened merely on a change of opinion since the bank account details of Shri Bore Gowda was already disclosed at the time of original assessment and also that the assessee was not issued with notice u/s. 143(2). The CIT(A) sent the assessee’s submissions

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the assessee’s case was reopened merely on a change of opinion since the bank account details of Shri Bore Gowda was already disclosed at the time of original assessment and also that the assessee was not issued with notice u/s. 143(2). The CIT(A) sent the assessee’s submissions

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the assessee’s case was reopened merely on a change of opinion since the bank account details of Shri Bore Gowda was already disclosed at the time of original assessment and also that the assessee was not issued with notice u/s. 143(2). The CIT(A) sent the assessee’s submissions

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the assessee’s case was reopened merely on a change of opinion since the bank account details of Shri Bore Gowda was already disclosed at the time of original assessment and also that the assessee was not issued with notice u/s. 143(2). The CIT(A) sent the assessee’s submissions

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