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 credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained cash credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged

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 credit which was brought to tax was `54,64,54,375/- and the balance tax payable was `24,86,19,304/-. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged

M/S. DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.33125/2017 (T-It) Between

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The impugned additions have been made in the declared income of the petitioner-assessee inter alia Date of Order 20-02-2018 W.P.No.33125/2017 M/s. Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3/7 on the ground of ‘unexplained cash credits’ U/s. 68

M/S GARDEN CITY EDUCATION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

unexplained Cash credit under Section 68 of the IT Act. 16. Thus, the Stand taken by the assessee that contributions

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

cash creditors”. “Trade creditors” represents persons who have supplied goods and to whom the assessee has not paid purchase consideration at the end of the relevant assessment years. d. If at all the said amount is to be assessed it should be assessed u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. e. By applying the provision of Sec. 68, the so called “Credit

SRI S MOHAMMED RAFIQ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Assessing Officer Warrants To Treat The Gift As Unexplained Credit, Notwithstanding Confirmation & Affidavit Are Filed & Inability To Produce Them As Donee?

unexplained cash credit by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28,71,972/- (credit

M/S. DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

unexplained cash credit, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act’ for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

cash credit and with regard to 5 addition made under Section 69 of the Act, he gave partial relief of Rs.6,09,119/-. 5. The matter was further carried by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2010 upheld the addition under Section 68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section

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

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.

Credit Society Limited Vs ACIT. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 also treated the unexplained income under Section 68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash

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.

Credit Society Limited Vs ACIT. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 also treated the unexplained income under Section 68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash

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.

Credit Society Limited Vs ACIT. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 also treated the unexplained income under Section 68 r/w Section 115BBE of the Act, the cash

SRI MOHAN M MEHARWADE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal Is allowed in part

Bench: K.SREEDHAR RAO,A.S.BOPANNA

cash credits brought to Rs. 10.00.000 tax u/s 68 of the Act as discussed above 2. Unexplained marriage expenditure Rs. 2.35.000 treated as income u Is 69C of the Act as discussed above 3 Income from lv Network Rs 65 000 4. hiconie fiom Other Sources - R.’. 2.00.000 UndLsc’Io%ed interest hicome as discussed abm e TOTAL

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

unexplained cash credit liable for taxation and brining into tax as income from other sources and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Without prejudice whether the tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 68