M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section. As per Rule 11UA (2) (b), option is given to the assessee to choose the method of valuation. Valuation as per DCF method is an approved method and the assessee has chosen it. Valuation of Premium @ Rs. 7,872/- is also by same method as per a valuation report of the same C. A. dated 18.09.2012 and higher

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit- worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

68 are satisfied. 14. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance

ACIT vs. M/S ALVARES & THOMAS,

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

105/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer [AO] made the following additions: ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 37 It was stated by AO that the above additions were based on incriminating material found as a result of survey operations conducted in the business premises of the assessee u/s 133A of the Act and statements of directors

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

105/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer [AO] made the following additions: ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 37 It was stated by AO that the above additions were based on incriminating material found as a result of survey operations conducted in the business premises of the assessee u/s 133A of the Act and statements of directors

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act in the absence of confirmation. Subsequently, the assessee during appellate proceedings filed certain additional evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned loan credit. The learned CIT(A) based on the same accepted the genuineness of part of the loan credit and found confirmation from certain individuals from whom sum of Rs.4

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

M/S. IRYD AUTOMATRIX PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Iryd Automatrix Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Vs. No.13/1, 4Th Floor, Ward – 3(1)(4), Sukruthi Apartment, Bengaluru. Subbaramachetty Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aadci 9051 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Hemant Pai, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of renting of two wheelers. The business model of the assessee is that it has developed an app and the customers can book two wheelers on hire through the app. During the previous year, the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs.25 Page

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

68 of the Act even though the source of such cash was explained with supporting evidences. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant cannot transact in Specified Bank Notes after 09.11.2016. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in levying