ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

business opportunities and investment strategies. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has incurred huge expenditure for this division and claimed the same as expenditure. However, the assessee did not allocate proportionate amount of this expenditure to other units including the units which claimed deduction u/s 10A/10AA/10B of the Act. The A.O. noticed that, in assessment year 2009-10 the total

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

business opportunities and investment strategies. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has incurred huge expenditure for this division and claimed the same as expenditure. However, the assessee did not allocate proportionate amount of this expenditure to other units including the units which claimed deduction u/s 10A/10AA/10B of the Act. The A.O. noticed that, in assessment year 2009-10 the total

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

business loss under the head "Other sources" as provided under section 71 of the Income tax Act. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has entertained a belief that what was claimed for set off against the income assessed u/s 68

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

business income, then the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’. The PCIT has stated that the AO ought to have treated the income as “unexplained cash credit” that should have been added u/s.68. This contention is not tenable since for the purpose of invoking section 68

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once the income

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 as per the provisions of Section 270AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 wherein the due taxes had already been remitted to the revenue authorities. The Appellant would like to draw the attention of Honourable members of ITAT that on a similar matter, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of GR Infra Projects Ltd. Vs ACIT

M/S. KARTHIK ESTATE,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

business income, then the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’. The PCIT has stated that the AO ought to have treated the income as “unexplained cash credit” that should have been added u/s.68. This contention is not tenable since for the purpose of invoking section 68

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said claim had been raised for the first time during the course of proceedings giving effect to the Tribunal's order dated 09.01.2023. i) Gain on forward contracts amounting to Rs. 68

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

business of processing and sale of granites. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28/10/2017, subsequently, the return was revised u/s 139(5) of the Act on 23/11/2018 declaring same income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessment was completed

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

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

68. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 69. Having considered the rival submission as well as relevant record, we are of the view that if this amount of Rs.22,444 is part of sum of Rs.2,22,444 being an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

income offered as – “inadmissible” expenditure. We accordingly, direct the Ld.AO to verify the claim in the light of supporting documents. The Ld.AO shall verify the basic requirements that needs to be qualified for the voluntary TP adjustment to be eligible for deduction under section 10 A of the act, even though assessee has located it as ‘inadmissible expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Income by the assessing officer by invoking the section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed total disallowance of Rs 6,13,95,000/- u/s 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of above, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 10. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of above, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 10. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of above, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 10. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

business of selling fish was false one. It was attempted to hide the real source of the cash deposits. He then held that the cash deposits of Rs. 1,25,89,399/- were cash credits within the meaning provided in the Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added Rs. 1,25,89,399/- to the income

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

business and other sources. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dt.15.12.2008 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5,45,59,686. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated. The assessment was completed making the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of interest of Rs.1