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

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

68 to section 69 of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore is not justified in confirming the addition confining herself only to human probabilities instead of appreciating the submissions and evidences produced. 7. The appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest u/s. 234B & 234C

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

68 of the Act is ITA No.705, 706 & 707/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 19 not mandatory rather directory in nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

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

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 is not sustainable. 5.12. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that taxing the aforesaid addition under section 115BBE amounts to taxing Rs.1,56,75,000/-twice over when the said amount was already taxed under the normal provisions. 6. The lower authorities have erred in levying interests of Rs. 47,77,410/-under section 234B

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

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

68 and 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

SRI KORAMANGALA MUNIREDDY CHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

68 as unexplained cash credits. ITA Nos. 1274 & 1275/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 10 5. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234B, 234C

SMT. TEENA BETHALA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD- 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 7. Ground No.3 to 6 – Addition under section 69A of the Act 7.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below for invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act in respect of ITA Nos.1383 and 1384/Bang/2019 Page

SMT. TEENA BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 7. Ground No.3 to 6 – Addition under section 69A of the Act 7.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below for invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act in respect of ITA Nos.1383 and 1384/Bang/2019 Page

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

68 of the Act and thus the addition mad of Rs.10,29,55/- as unexplained cash credits need to be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant could not have influenced the share prices as the sale took place in a recognized stock exchange on a screen

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

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt.14.3.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore dt.14.3.2016 for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds :- 1. “ That the order

LEELARAM CHOUDHARY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act is to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, are applicable to the above addition as made and confirmed. On proper appreciation of the facts of the law, it is clear that the provisions of Section 115BBE

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

section 68 of the Act. 21. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/-. 22. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment