SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

68 of 102 the assessee's objects and the assessee's activities are in consonance with each other. Even otherwise the order passed by the learned CIT is without jurisdiction. Submission on Behalf of the CIT 31. The learned that CIT DR strongly relied upon the findings of the CIT for cancellation order passed under section

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

127 of the Act for change of jurisdiction and no information was provided to the appellant regarding the change of jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment completed under sections 148/147 of the Act instead of 153C of the Act is bad in law. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments:  Sai Krupa Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

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

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

127 of the Act for change of jurisdiction and no information was provided to the appellant regarding the change of jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment completed under sections 148/147 of the Act instead of 153C of the Act is bad in law. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: • Sai Krupa Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad

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

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

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

127 of the Act for change of jurisdiction and no information was provided to the appellant regarding the change of jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment completed under sections 148/147 of the Act instead of 153C of the Act is bad in law. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: • Sai Krupa Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

127 of the Act, without there being valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and therefore the said order is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice

KLENE PAKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 68 are fulfilled, the addition cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on general investigation reports which . ITA No.1771 & 1772/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 14 are not specific to the assessee. The law is well settled that suspicion cannot replace proof. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition made on account of unsecured loans deserves to be deleted

KLENE PAKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 68 are fulfilled, the addition cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on general investigation reports which . ITA No.1771 & 1772/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 14 are not specific to the assessee. The law is well settled that suspicion cannot replace proof. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition made on account of unsecured loans deserves to be deleted

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. 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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,00,000/- as confirmed, but mistakenly left out the case of Sri Rajesh Kamath, where ₹60,00,000/- was backed by a settlement agreement but no relief was given. 50.2 Furthermore, the learned AR argued that many of the other loans had been fully repaid through banking channels, making separate confirmations unnecessary. The learned AR stressed that no incriminating

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

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