COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

unexplained cash credit under section 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

unexplained investments that can be clearly attributed to concealed income. However, mere 53 addition or estimates made on mere suspicion that there is something wrong with the book entries or their incompleteness, inadvertent omissions, debatable additions or disallowances, cash credits

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

cash credits as the undisclosed income in the hands of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act and the learned Tribunal on an appeal though held that the additions in the hands of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act could not be sustained but, the Tribunal proceeded to add the aforesaid amounts as unexplained income

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal

Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

cash to Shri L. Gopala Krishna is concerned, we find that the CIT (A) has observed that the assessee never claimed it as expenditure. It was an investment. Therefore, section 40A(3) is not applicable. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not possible. But again the issue would be from where the assessee has brought this fund. It is claiming