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

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

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

68 of the Act was not sustainable as the assessee had not maintained books of account. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to demonstrate the necessity of reassessment for interest payments.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "133A

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

133A of the Act and also search conducted against Mr. D. S. Nandish under section 132(4) of the Act. There is direct proximity to the survey and search conducted on Mr. D. S. Nandish and his other companies where returns under section 153A of the Act were initiated. Further, the AO has solely relied on the statement

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

68, as the assessee had not maintained books of account. The additions made towards interest payment also failed on similar grounds.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "133A

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68", "Section 132(4)", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 143(3)", "Section 132", "Section 131", "Section 133A

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

68. Cash credits. - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly\nallowed

68", "37", "147", "148", "151", "153C", "133A", "143(3)", "143(1)", "2(40)" ], "issues": "Whether additions under Section 68

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

68. Cash credits. - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

68. Cash credits. - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

68. Cash credits. - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly\nallowed

68", "37", "147", "148", "151", "153C", "133A", "143(1)", "143(3)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the addition under Section 68

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Further as survey u/s. 133A

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

133A of the Act and searchstatements\nunder section 132(4) of the Actthe name and quantum is appearing in the list.\nTherefore, it is clear that the very basis for reopening and completing assessment\nis on the basis of section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, the assessement should\nhave been completed under section 153C

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the Page 7 of 11 assessee has not deducted TDS and genuineness of the payment is also doubted. Therefore, the AO has also doubted the genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee for want of proper evidence. Therefore the AO has correctly disallowed interest

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the Page 7 of 11 assessee has not deducted TDS and genuineness of the payment is also doubted. Therefore, the AO has also doubted the genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee for want of proper evidence. Therefore the AO has correctly disallowed interest

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS and genuineness of the payment is also doubted. Therefore, the AO has also doubted the genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee for want of proper evidence. Therefore the AO has correctly disallowed interest

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS and genuineness of the payment is also doubted. Therefore, the AO has also doubted the genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee for want of proper evidence. Therefore the AO has correctly disallowed interest

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS and genuineness of the payment is also doubted. Therefore, the AO has also doubted the genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee for want of proper evidence. Therefore the AO has correctly disallowed interest