M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

justice.\n2) That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

justice.\n2) That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

justice.\n2) That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the condonation\napplication for delay of 167 days without properly appreciating the facts\nof the case.\n3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of ₹.56,07,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

nature of credit found adequate in the context of section 2(22)(e) cannot be treated as inadequate for purposes of section 68. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and forgo, any or all the grounds of appeal and adduce additional evidence before or at the time of the hearing. 6. For these grounds which

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

nature and sources thereof and the explanation so offered should be satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. In the present case, there is no doubt regarding the identity of the party from whom assessee ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

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

nature and sources thereof and the explanation so offered should be satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. In the present case, there is no doubt regarding the identity of the party from whom assessee ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

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

nature and sources thereof and the explanation so offered should be satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. In the present case, there is no doubt regarding the identity of the party from whom assessee ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

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)

natural justice and thus, liable to be quashed, 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred partly by upholding the cash deposits of Rs. 21,98,000/- as additions under section 68

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

nature.” 3.3 Before us, apart from being heard the learned Standing Counsel for Revenue put forth written submissions which are extracted hereunder :- 1. “ Search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 19/7/2010. Notice under section 153A of the Act issued on 21/9/2000 and served on 28/9/2010. 2. ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS UNDER

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

section 68 of the Act merely on the grounds that assessee was not authorised to receive SBN during the demonetisation. We are also conscious to facts that the AO proceeded to make addition without verifying the details provided by the assessee, explaining the nature and source of the credit. Therefore, we, for the sake of justice

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice and conceding that the addition under section 68 of the Act is not warranted, the learned assessing officer is not justified in taxing the entire sum appearing in the balance sheet and the only the net increase in deposits for the year could have been taxed

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

Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.” 2.1 Facts of the issue are that the assessee is an individual who carries on business of running of Bar and Restaurant for the past several years. That apart, the assessee also

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

Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.” 2.1 Facts of the issue are that the assessee is an individual who carries on business of running of Bar and Restaurant for the past several years. That apart, the assessee also

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

natural justice which\nhave been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is\nadopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have\na reasonable opportunity of presenting his case."\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

natural justice which\nhave been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is\nadopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have\na reasonable opportunity of presenting his case."\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain