G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deposit (cash credits) to the extent of Rs.15,07,900/- were not believed by the Assessing Authority as explained and the additions to the declared income were made in her hand under Section 68

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming

SHRI.GAYATRI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum W.P.No.147037/2020 (T-It) Between: Shri Gayatri Credit Co-Operative Society Sulebhavi No.Main Road, Sulebhavi-587124, Dist: Bagalkot, Rep.By Its Chief Executive Officer, Shri Hemanth S/O Chandrasekhar Duttaragi, Aged About 49 Years.

68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved

JYOTHI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum W.P.No.147036/2020 (T-It) Between: Jyothi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, No.Opp. Sbi Navanager, Bagalkot-587 103, Rep.By Its Chief Executive Officer, Shri.Babu S/O Shankrappa Nadagoudar, Ageda Bout 48 Years.

68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved

NATIONAL MINORITY CO-OPERATIVE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum W.P.No.147038/2020 (T-It) Between: National Minority Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Badami, Dist: Bagalkot-587101. Rep.By Its Chief Shri.Lalasab S/O Husensab Pathan, Aged About 47 Years.

68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

deposited in the bank. It is further submitted that that books of accounts of the assessee are audited under Section 6 44AB of the Act for the years ending on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. It is also submitted that Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts of the assessee and has used the same cash book for calculating

VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar W.P. No.109226/2015 C/W W.P. No.109404/2015 (Apmc) In W.P. No.109226/2015 Between: Vijay Industires T.M.C. Unit, P.O.Box No.12 Belagavi Road Bailhongal-591102 Rep By Its Proprietor Shri Vijay S/O Shrishail Metgud Age:39 Years, Occ: Business R/O Belagavi Road Bailhongal ... Petitioner (By Sri. R.M.Kulkarni-Adv For Smt. Hemalekha K.S.-Adv) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary Department Of Agriculture Marketing M.S. Building, Bengaluru. 2. The Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01. 3. The Additional Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01.

cash or cheque immediately. Rule 87-D of the Rules relates - 49 - to the grant of licence to establish a farmer consumer market and reads as under:- “87-D. Grant of licence to establish farmer-consumer market.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 72-B and 72-C of the Act, any person desiring to establish a farmer- consumer

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

KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

cash credit under Section 5 68 of the Income Tax Act, for computation of income of the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14 and on the same day i.e., 15.3.2016 issued demand notice determining Rs.1,76,97,570/- as income tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal via online before the first appellate authority i.e, Commissioner

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

deposited in cheques received from the assessee company is immediately withdrawn in cash. Cash has been withdrawn from the bank accounts mainly by the employees of the assessee company. Each leg of this transaction has been proved with evidence to be false, it has been proved by the admission of the alleged transporters’ that their business concerns have been floated

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

deposit- linked insurance fund established under Section 3G of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or as the case may be, Section 6C of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or to effect a contract

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOODBIDRI CO OPERATIVE SERVICES BANK LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the 1961 Act has been revived by setting aside the revisional order made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Learned Sr. panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law which read as under: “1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in considering the interest received

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deposited into the assessee’s Bank - 32 - accounts to ultimately acquire shares of a public limited company, and therefore, they did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority and the appeal came to be dismissed. 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act initiated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deposited into the assessee’s Bank - 32 - accounts to ultimately acquire shares of a public limited company, and therefore, they did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority and the appeal came to be dismissed. 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act initiated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deposited into the assessee’s Bank - 32 - accounts to ultimately acquire shares of a public limited company, and therefore, they did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority and the appeal came to be dismissed. 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act initiated

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deposited into the assessee’s Bank - 32 - accounts to ultimately acquire shares of a public limited company, and therefore, they did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority and the appeal came to be dismissed. 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act initiated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deposited into the assessee’s Bank - 32 - accounts to ultimately acquire shares of a public limited company, and therefore, they did not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority and the appeal came to be dismissed. 17. The Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act initiated

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

cash – Mos.6 to 9 and 11. Absolutely there is no material to prove that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased so as to attract the provisions of Section 302 of IPC. 43 56. The provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: “27. How much information received from accused