ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

68. Assessee has to establish identity and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 22 creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. (vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof is not a static one. As per the provisions of the section the initial

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

sections": [ "68", "115BBE", "143(1)", "145(1)", "145(3)", "270A", "271AAC", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition of share

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "270A", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "145(1)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

145. For, assessment under Section 144 is done only if the books are rejected. In that case, the same books cannot be relied upon to impose subsequent additions, as has been done in this case Page 12 of 34 under Section 68

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

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

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

section 145(2) of the Act, the Central Government has issued Accounting Standards, which are to be followed by the assessee following mercantile system of accounting vide Notification dated 25-1- 1996. Clause 6(b) of the aforesaid Notification defines the expression 'accrual' means that revenue and costs are accrued i.e., recognized as they are earned or incurred

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

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

section 145(2) of the Act, the Central Government has issued Accounting Standards, which are to be followed by the assessee following mercantile system of accounting vide Notification dated 25-1- 1996. Clause 6(b) of the aforesaid Notification defines the expression 'accrual' means that revenue and costs are accrued i.e., recognized as they are earned or incurred

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

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

section 145(2) of the Act, the Central Government has issued Accounting Standards, which are to be followed by the assessee following mercantile system of accounting vide Notification dated 25-1- 1996. Clause 6(b) of the aforesaid Notification defines the expression 'accrual' means that revenue and costs are accrued i.e., recognized as they are earned or incurred

M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

section 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the authorities below erred in ignoring the relevant details and relying on surmises, suppositions and conjectures in support of the addition. The authorities below erred in making the addition even after giving a finding that the said funds belong to the directors and not to the company. Thus they failed

M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 145(2) of the Act also. The principle of prudence seeks to ensure that provision ought to be made for all known liabilities and losses even though there may remain some uncertainty with its determination. So however, it has to be appreciated that what the principle of prudence signifies is that the probable losses should be immediately recognized

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1)&TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED.,, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE1(1)& TPS , MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. M/S SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

145/-. 4. It is to be noted that in these assessment years the ld. AO has made following additions: Income Addition u/s Unexplained Unexplained from 68 of the Act investment investment Business

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

145/-. 4. It is to be noted that in these assessment years the ld. AO has made following additions: Income Addition u/s Unexplained Unexplained from 68 of the Act investment investment Business