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

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

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, 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

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

150,13,10,676/- as unaccounted cash credit u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of learned Assessing Officer in treating the loan from Dinesh Kumar Singhi of Rs.78,39,89,104/- as accounted cash credit

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

68 of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of AO in disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments

HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1) & TPS, SHIMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

150) as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 10. The AO treated unsecured loans of ₹1.38 crores

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

150) as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 10. The AO treated unsecured loans of ₹1.38 crores

SHANTILAL JAIN(HUF),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

150 for AY 2017-18. During assessment, it was observed that the assessee deposited a large sum of cash, including during the demonetisation period. The AO made an addition of INR 84,57,143 under Section 68

SRI RAJKUMAR C(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

150 and Section 153 of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.” 2. Pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court judgment, the matter was heard on 20.10.2022. 3. The brief facts in relation to the above case are as follows: A search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of one Shri K.J.Purushotham Reddy

SRI RAJKUMAR C(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

150 and Section 153 of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.” 2. Pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court judgment, the matter was heard on 20.10.2022. 3. The brief facts in relation to the above case are as follows: A search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of one Shri K.J.Purushotham Reddy

SRI RAJKUMAR C(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

150 and Section 153 of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.” 2. Pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court judgment, the matter was heard on 20.10.2022. 3. The brief facts in relation to the above case are as follows: A search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of one Shri K.J.Purushotham Reddy

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

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

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.

150/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act determining total income at Rs.2,49,51,145/-. 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.

150/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act determining total income at Rs.2,49,51,145/-. 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