T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, 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

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

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the cash deposits are duly explainable. The addition as made/ confirmed is wholly erroneous is to be deleted. Me appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. The AO has mentioned that certain enquiries were carried out by him and was not able to get satisfactory information. Without making available the results of enquiry and investigation carried out by the AO, the assessee was called to explain the said receipt in the form of share capital. Ex facie

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the grounds (i) and (ii) raised by Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst. years 2010-11 and 2011- 12 are dismissed. Assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1104 & 1105/Bang/2015 for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 5.0 Aggrieved by the common order

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S BMM CEMENTS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s C

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Bmm Cements Ltd., Bengaluru. . Respondent Co No.206/Bang/2015 Appellant By : Shri K.V Aarvind, Standing Counsel Respondent By : Shri K.R Pradeep, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 01-2-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-4-2018 O R D E R

147 of the Act and (ii) deleted the protective addition of Rs.56.40 crores made as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. REVENUE’S APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 22/5/2015 for asst. year 2010-11, Revenue has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

cash credits u/s 68 and Rs.57,30,073/- as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.3 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised issue on the validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and that the initiation of notice u/s

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

cash credits u/s 68 and Rs.57,30,073/- as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.3 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised issue on the validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and that the initiation of notice u/s

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

unexplained cash credits. As per para 5.4.5 of his order, learned CIT (A) confirmed this addition by giving a vague finding that the assessee is a well to do person and is receiving gift from relatives and employees who are persons of ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 54 comparatively smaller means but the dispute

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

unexplained cash credits. As per para 5.4.5 of his order, learned CIT (A) confirmed this addition by giving a vague finding that the assessee is a well to do person and is receiving gift from relatives and employees who are persons of ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 54 comparatively smaller means but the dispute

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

unexplained cash credits. As per para 5.4.5 of his order, learned CIT (A) confirmed this addition by giving a vague finding that the assessee is a well to do person and is receiving gift from relatives and employees who are persons of ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 54 comparatively smaller means but the dispute

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

unexplained cash credits. As per para 5.4.5 of his order, learned CIT (A) confirmed this addition by giving a vague finding that the assessee is a well to do person and is receiving gift from relatives and employees who are persons of ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 54 comparatively smaller means but the dispute

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

unexplained cash credits. As per para 5.4.5 of his order, learned CIT (A) confirmed this addition by giving a vague finding that the assessee is a well to do person and is receiving gift from relatives and employees who are persons of ITA No.62 to 66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 54 comparatively smaller means but the dispute