M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

disallowances made has been challenged by the assessee separately before the Ld.CIT(A), against the order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act. Page 8 of 11 We have perused the relevant amendment brought into section 115BBE of the Act that categorically is applicable with effect from assessment year 2016-17. 10. Undisputedly, the provisions of section 115BBE

SHRISHIL DHULAPPA HONAVAD ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowances of agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,761/- and treating the same as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. 3. The facts

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 69A, SLP dismissed. Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT 120161 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) 9. SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where evidence of one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against assessee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 69A, SLP dismissed. Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT 120161 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) 9. SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where evidence of one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against assessee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 69A, SLP dismissed. Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT 120161 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) 9. SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where evidence of one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against assessee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains on the long term equity shares and have failed to take cognizance of the DEMAT statement, contract notes, etc submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances. ii. The authorities below have erred in treating the long

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed. 16. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 25 of 32 17. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a credit co-operative society dealing only with its members and that during the demonetisation period, the cash deposited in the society

AVINASH ARADHYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

section 69A of the Act on account of gold jewelry found during search. 13. During the search, gold weighing 5213.78 grams was found from the bank lockers held by the assessee and his family member, out of which gold weighing 1511.65 grams was seized by the search team. 14. The assessee during the assessment proceeding submitted that the gold Jewelry

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

69A of the Act under the facts\nand circumstances of the case.\n11. The LAO and the CIT(A) erred in taxing the inflow\nand out flow which is not permissible in law and ought to\nhave applied the principle of telescoping and granted\nappropriate relief. The amount of Fee Refund amounting\nto Rs.7,65,54,000/- and unexplained expenditure

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

69A or section 69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

69A or section 69B or (iii) fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

69A of the Act regarding the impugned cash deposits. This is in contravention of the powers under section 251(l)(a) of the Act which restricts only, confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling the assessment but not modifying the provision of law qua the item of which the assessment was made. 9. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred by upholding the unsecured

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing the statutorily given benefit u/s 80P (2) (a) (i). 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the documents submitted in support of cash deposits which are already verified by the NABARD officials. 7. The learned assessing officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 69A

SHRI.B.H.BASHA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

69A of the Act. To sustain the addition, there should be positive material and more than entry in the loose sheet which is missing in this case. The seized materials in the form of loose sheet marked as A/BHP/11 does not bare any signature of any person. The AO examined Shri Vijay Kumar, who was said to be taken loan

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowing the deduction but making addition u/s. 69 and 69A of the Act which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The assessment proceedings are not made as per the issues which have to be examined under limited scrutiny. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5.2 He further submitted that the learned assessing officer

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed the deduction & adding the same under head salary and on the other hand, invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act which is completely unacceptable. Section 115BBE can only be invoked in Biju Pappachan, Kollam Page 13 of 14 case of tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

69A of the Act under the facts\nand circumstances of the case.\n11. The LAO and the CIT(A) erred in taxing the inflow\nand out flow which is not permissible in law and ought to\nhave applied the principle of telescoping and granted\nappropriate relief. The amount of Fee Refund amounting\nto Rs.7,65,54,000/- and unexplained expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012 – 13

69A without proper appreciation of the explanation offered by the appellant is bad in law and should be deleted. 10. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 14, Bangalore has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section