MERCHANTS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

239 actually being cash received from members and it was deposited into the bank. As per Central Govt. Notification No.2562 dated 08.11.2016, the assessee was not eligible for accepting cash in old currency (SBNs). Accordingly SBNs deposited by the assessee after 08.11.2016 becomes unexplained in the hands of the assessee as there was no value to the SBNs collected

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act in this appeal. This is said to be received from following persons: a) Abdul Ansar - Rs.3.5 lakhs b) Hidayatullah - Rs.27.82 lakhs Total - Rs.31.32 lakhs 11.1 The contention of the ld. D.R. is that the assessee has not proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Admittedly, these credits are appearing in the books of accounts

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act in this appeal. This is said to be received from following persons: a) Abdul Ansar - Rs.3.5 lakhs b) Hidayatullah - Rs.27.82 lakhs Total - Rs.31.32 lakhs 11.1 The contention of the ld. D.R. is that the assessee has not proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Admittedly, these credits are appearing in the books of accounts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. S S INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 68 has no application in it's case. This ground has not been adjourned by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, the order deserves to be set aside to the Learned CIT(A) for this limited issue. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Cross-Objection, your Respondent/Cross-Objector

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

239/- by issue of notice of demand under section 156 of the Act;\n11. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issue of notice\nunder section 274 read with section 271 and such other provisions of the\nAct:\n(Total tax effect: Rs. 25,25,867/-)\n3. At the time of hearing

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

239/-. Consequent to the search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act, at the residential premises of Mr. Bava U.K., partner of the assessee on 8.2.2018, there was survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 8.2.2018 at the business premises of the assessee and certain documents were impounded during the course of survey. Consequent

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return