AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

156, it was observed\nthat the true test is whether the litigant acted with reasonable\ndiligence in prosecuting the appeal.\n4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal\nKumari AIR 1969 SC 575 held that unless mala fides or culpable\nnegligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied.\nA bona fide

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

156, it was observed\nthat the true test is whether the litigant acted with reasonable\ndiligence in prosecuting the appeal.\n4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal\nKumari AIR 1969 SC 575 held that unless mala fides or culpable\nnegligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied.\nA bona fide

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

156, it was observed\nthat the true test is whether the litigant acted with reasonable\ndiligence in prosecuting the appeal.\n4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal\nKumari AIR 1969 SC 575 held that unless mala fides or culpable\nnegligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied.\nA bona fide

SMT. ARUNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

68 and directed that income should be computed under Section 44AD of the Act. Further, he submitted that as the Tribunal is very well aware that, presumptive taxation is brought into Income Tax Act to facilitate ease of doing business to the small entrepreneurs and not to burden them with drudgery of maintaining books of accounts and getting

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act of Rs.21,15,027/- ( 17,67,740+3,47,287). The assessee filed an appeal on 15.02.2023, resulting in a delay of 156

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

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

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

156 of the Act has been raised in the combined name of\nall three legal representatives, rather than issuing separate assessments\nto each individual legal heir. This approach, according to the Revenue,\nITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024\nPage 19 of 116\ndoes not result in a demand three times the actual liability

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

section 68 of\nthe Act in the absence of confirmation. Subsequently, the assessee\nduring appellate proceedings filed certain additional evidence to\nsubstantiate the genuineness of the impugned loan credit. The learned\nCIT(A) based on the same accepted the genuineness of part of the loan\ncredit and found confirmation from certain individuals from whom sum of\nRs.4

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

156 of the Act has been raised in the combined name of\nall three legal representatives, rather than issuing separate assessments\nto each individual legal heir. This approach, according to the Revenue,\nITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024\nPage 19 of 116\ndoes not result in a demand three times the actual liability