T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act is clearly attracted. For this purpose, he submitted that the ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 27 of 107 decision in the case of Shri G.C. Gurushanthappa v. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bangalore vide ITA.Nos.564 & 886(B) dated 22/6/2012 for the assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act is clearly attracted. For this purpose, he submitted that the ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 27 of 107 decision in the case of Shri G.C. Gurushanthappa v. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bangalore vide ITA.Nos.564 & 886(B) dated 22/6/2012 for the assessment year

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 68 of the Act. D B Corporation is a listed company. I t is submitted that the Appellant has fulfilled the primary onus cast upon him i.e., identity of the person making the payment, creditworthiness and confirmation by the person making such payment. The authorities below failed to make any enquiries based on the information provided

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded

M/S MALNAD FINANCE CORPORATION (R),BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia

section 68. In reply, the learned AR of the assessee could not produce anything in respect of identity and credit worthiness of the persons from whom cash credit in question was received. Regarding the 2nd issue i.e., writing off of bad debts, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the books of accounts

M/S MALNAD FINANCE CORPORATION (R),BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia

section 68. In reply, the learned AR of the assessee could not produce anything in respect of identity and credit worthiness of the persons from whom cash credit in question was received. Regarding the 2nd issue i.e., writing off of bad debts, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the books of accounts

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

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is clearly not based on any incriminating material seized from the assessee. 3.4.3 In this context, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions in ITA No.528 to 531/2014 has held as under :- “ 4.2.2 In this regard, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case

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

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

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

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