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

234A", "234B", "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "144", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, and whether additions made under Section 68

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

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

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

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", "132(4)", "153C", "133(6)", "234A

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

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

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

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

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

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

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

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

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

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

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, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

M/S K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA/S, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA/S, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S K.R. VENKATESH GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

234A, B & C are not in accordance with law since the rate, period, quantum adopted is not discernable from the orders. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 14. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal