MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

68 in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account are unsustainable. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not bring any other decision to support the revenue’s contention that the cash deposits made in the bank account to be brought into the purview of section

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

cash deposited is unjustified. 4.5 With regard to the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE taxing the aforesaid addition made at the rate of 60%, he submitted that the provisions of Section 1158BE of the Act are not attracted to the case of the assessee since there is no cause to sustain the addition made u/s 68

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

cash deposited is unjustified. 4.5 With regard to the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE taxing the aforesaid addition made at the rate of 60%, he submitted that the provisions of Section 1158BE of the Act are not attracted to the case of the assessee since there is no cause to sustain the addition made u/s 68

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

deposits in bank account of Rs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which remains unexplained cash credit under section 68

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

deposit u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.6.35 lakhs towards negative cash balance in the books of accounts totalling Rs.41.35 lakhs. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that once the assessee’s case falls under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, no invocation of section 68

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

deposits in bank account of Rs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which remains unexplained cash credit under section 68

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

deposits in bank account of Rs.2,13,37000/-/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which remains unexplained cash credit under section 68

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

deposits made during the demonetization period without rejecting the books of accounts and thereby bringing the same amount to tax twice. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred by altering the applicability of tax provisions from section 68 to section 69A of the Act regarding the impugned cash

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

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

68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 54 society and cash deposits made by Mr. Shamshuddin Abdul Khader were did not pertain to his business turnover. The additions made by the assessing authority arbitrary in nature and also contrary to the evidence on hand and therefore against the law. d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

deposits were . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 8 of 25 made out of cash sales conducted on a single day i.e 08.11.2016 and cash in hand increased is unbelievable and unacceptable. 6.5 The appellant has stated during the appellate proceedings that section 68

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again