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

reassess in the light of the provision of the section 153C of the Act. 7.3.4 During the course of hearing the Learned AR has relied on the Judgement of the Division Bench of The Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 830 to 834 of 2022 , order dated 22/01/2014, which we have dealt with in detail in the later

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 148 of the Act only after the audit party raised certain objections is invalid. 46. The ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the reasons recorded do not show as to how the AO has come to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has exceeded Rs. 1 lac merely based on certain bank entries. The AO considered

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 148 of the Act only after the audit party raised certain objections is invalid. 46. The ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the reasons recorded do not show as to how the AO has come to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has exceeded Rs. 1 lac merely based on certain bank entries. The AO considered

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

money on protective basis as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act ITA No.1109/B/15 CO No.206/B/15 18 and deleted by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the grounds (i) and (ii) raised by Revenue are dismissed. 5. In the result, Revenue’s appeal

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Legal issues: a. The notice issued U/s 148 of the act is bad in law. b. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the officer issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act, did not possess jurisdiction to issue notice and consequently the entire proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings of the AO on the grounds of re-assessment and the statement recorded

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

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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, 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

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, 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

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

unexplained income for this AY in terms of section 69 of the Act and added into the total income of the assesse, and assessed income at Rs.4,67,40,302/-. 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal and detailed written submissions were also submitted. The CIT(A), after considering the entire written submissions and documents available before

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Authorities below erred in estimating 3% of sale consideration of shares as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act merely on surmise. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Further prays

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

money on protective basis as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and deleted by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order at para 8.7 thereof cannot be treated as 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

unexplained income for this AY in terms of section 69 of the Act and added into the total income of the assesse, and assessed income at Rs.4,67,40,302/-. 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal and detailed written submissions were also submitted. The CIT(A), after considering the entire written submissions and documents available before