ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

disallowance of revenue expenditure of ₹3,44,44,734/- remain under appeal before the Tribunal; and (iii) the other additions under section 69C

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowed under section 40(a) of the Act. 8.4. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in wrongly making an adjustment under section 69C

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowed under section 40(a) of the Act. 8.4. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in wrongly making an adjustment under section 69C

SWAMY HOLAGUNDI,HUVINA HADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

disallowed under section 69C of the act and to be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the act. 4. Aggrieved

SRI. E. KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowance is attracted only in respect of amounts which remain payable on the last day of the financial year.” Following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT (Appeals) qua this issue. 28. Ground No.10 is regarding addition under Section 69C

SREE VISHWABHARATHI CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(1), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the claim of application of income of Rs. 30,45,214/- by invoking section 69C of the Act. The amount

M/S BANGALORE BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 7.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that the said disallowance is unsustainable, arbitrary

BANGALORE BEVERAGES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 7.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that the said disallowance is unsustainable, arbitrary

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

RAMACHANDRA NAVEEN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(1), BENGLAURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

69C of the Act. Here, in the observation of the AO from the submission of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO himself has satisfied that source is proved therefore no addition can be made under this section. As during the course of hearing the learned Counsel stated that the payments made to employees are allowances

SRI RAMACHANDRA NAVEEN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

69C of the Act. Here, in the observation of the AO from the submission of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO himself has satisfied that source is proved therefore no addition can be made under this section. As during the course of hearing the learned Counsel stated that the payments made to employees are allowances

RAMACHANDRA NAVEEN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

69C of the Act. Here, in the observation of the AO from the submission of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO himself has satisfied that source is proved therefore no addition can be made under this section. As during the course of hearing the learned Counsel stated that the payments made to employees are allowances

SRI. RAMACHANDRA NAVEEN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

69C of the Act. Here, in the observation of the AO from the submission of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO himself has satisfied that source is proved therefore no addition can be made under this section. As during the course of hearing the learned Counsel stated that the payments made to employees are allowances

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness

KRS FASHION WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed ex parte

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 69C of the Act in respect of depreciation of Rs.36,421 claimed in such unexplained additions to the fixed assets. The CIT(Appeals) also affirmed the action of the AO in the first appeal. 6. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO has disallowed

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

69C. In May 2002, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. An assessment order was made computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,94,420, on the ground that during the course of survey unexplained cash to the tune of Rs.2,95,000 and unexplained stocks to the tune of Rs.2