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)

demonetization period without rejecting the books of accounts and thereby bringing the same amount to tax twice. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred by altering the applicability of tax provisions from section 68

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

demonetization and the same was not permitted. Thus, it is submitted that the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

demonetization and the same was not permitted. Thus, it is submitted that the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted

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

demonetization. Therefore, notwithstanding the details furnished by the appellant, the fundamental illegality of accepting SBNs renders such transactions violative of law and the deposits rightly fall within the ambit of unexplained cash credit under section 68

M P SWARNAMAHAL ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

demonetization period. 3. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee furnished details in compliance of notices. Assessee furnished explanation regarding cash deposits that they are out of cash sales during Financial Year 2016-17. Notice dated 19.09.2019 was issued

MUDHOL PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA,MUDHOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita, Vs. Acit, Gokul Complex, Gandhi Circle, Mudhol, Circle – 1, Mudhol Dist, Bagalkot – 587 313, Hassan. Karnataka. Pan : Aaeam 7882 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

demonetization since the SBNs were not legal tender. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. ITO (supra) had deleted the addition made under section 68/69A of the Act. In the aforesaid case, since the assessee had satisfied the conditions as mandated under section 68

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

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

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

section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 27,12,500/- during demonetization

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

section 68 of the Act was made by the AO solely for the reason\nthat assessee had accepted SBNs during the demonetization

CHETANA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , DAVANEGERE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetized notes of Rs.500 & 1,000 upto 08.11.2016 shall cease to be legal tender w.e.f. 09.11.2016. However assessee has accepted Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 of Rs.27,37,957. The AO noted that the assessee was unable to satisfied the ingredients of section 68

SHRI. DEVAL PATTAN PATTIN SAHAKARA SANGH NIYAMIT,ILKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. Peculiarly the Ld.AO is taking the view that the Assessee was not entitled to collect the demonetized

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization period. He submits that there is no reference to charging of tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act and therefore charging of surcharge and higher rate of tax is devoid of any merit. 17. On Ground No.5 it was submitted that the ld. AO has wrongly taxed Rs.24 lakhs as undisclosed income. He submits that the provisions of section 68

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

demonetization as evident from the cash book. 5.7. The lower authorities have erred in making addition under section 68 by merely

MERCHANTS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization as unexplained u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, even when cash receipts were explained and recorded in books of accounts. We draw support in the ITAT Cases decided (i) Bhageeratha Pattina Sahahkara Sangh Niyamit Vs ITO ITA 646/Bang/2021 TS-5362 ITAT 2022 (Bang) (ii) Prathamik Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamitha Vs ITO ITA 593/Bang/2021 3. The learned

PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

68 of the Act Page 2 of 10 ii. Addition of Rs.6,97,272/- under section 69Cof the Act 3. The assessee is a dealer for Motor Pumps, irrigation products, pipes and fitting. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 10.08.2017 declaring an income of Rs.37,16,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

demonetization. 9. The ld. Pr.CIT, Hubli observed that the assessee society has made cash deposits of Rs.3,67,23,820/- (Rs. 3,67,52,590 – Rs. 28,770) in the Axis Bank, Sirsi Branch and Rs.75,00,000/- in Axis Bank, Hubli Branch during demonetisation period in SBNs. The assessee was not authorized to accept SBNs and any acceptance

M/S. BRAHMI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

68 and taxed it at special rate u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR submitted that during the demonetization period, the assessee accepted cash deposits from its members for depositing in accounts, loan accounts

SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

demonetization as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 10. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that