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

penalty, on the addition of\nRs.56,07,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge

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 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 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that part of the share capital represented company’s own income from undisclosed sources. The similar view has been taken by the High Courts. 17. As the Apex Court has considered the law in Lovely Exports (Supra

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 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that part of the share capital represented company’s own income from undisclosed sources. The similar view has been taken by the High Courts. 17. As the Apex Court has considered the law in Lovely Exports (Supra

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 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that part of the share capital represented company’s own income from undisclosed sources. The similar view has been taken by the High Courts. 17. As the Apex Court has considered the law in Lovely Exports (Supra

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 ITR 58 (Delhi) with ITA Nos 2558/2012 and 2044 and 2045/2014 dated 20.11.2018, the ITAT dismissed the appeals of Spaze Towers Pvt Ltd, thereby upholding the penalties imposed under Section

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 being an application u/s. 270AA(2) of the act seeking immunity against the penalty proceedings. The Ld.AO however still initiated the penalty proceedings on 17.09.2022. The penalty order was passed on 15.03.2023 wherein the Ld.AO rejected the immunity from penalty proceedings by observing as under: “12. With regard to immunity from penalty proceedings u/s section

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 being an application u/s. 270AA(2) of the act seeking immunity against the penalty proceedings. The Ld.AO however still initiated the penalty proceedings on 17.09.2022. The penalty order was passed on 15.03.2023 wherein the Ld.AO rejected the immunity from penalty proceedings by observing as under: “12. With regard to immunity from penalty proceedings u/s section

M/S ROAD LINKS INDIA PVT, LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs.28,58,070, in respect of unexplained cash credits under 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

penalty at 10% of tax to be evaded which worked out at Rs.1,50,606/-. The same has been ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 7 of 21 confirmed by NFAC. Against these orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that under the provisions of 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

penalty at 10% of tax to be evaded which worked out at Rs.1,50,606/-. The same has been ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 7 of 21 confirmed by NFAC. Against these orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that under the provisions of section 68

SRI.YARABOLU SESHADRI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

68 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiating the proceedings under Section 271D by issuing a notice under Section 274 of the Act on 25.9.2014 in respect of accepting the loan amount of Rs.2,00,500 cash from Mr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy, father of assessee. The assessee vide his reply dt.13.10.2014 contended that provisions of Section

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)

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and sources, the credit shown in the books of accounts in the assessment year under consideration is open to the lower authorities to hold that it is the income of the assessee and there would be no burden on the revenue

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

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

penalty despite of filing Form 68 as per the\nprovisions of Section 270AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 wherein

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 273B of the Act. 38. With respect to assessee's claim that the transaction in question was neither loan nor deposit because the amount having been received from the trustee, was receipt to oneself, there was no reason for levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act and that the default, if any, was of technical and venial

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), Mysore. However, the case was dismissed CIT(A), Mysore. However, the case

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

section 68 and added• the same in the income of the Assessee. The AO also levied penalty under section 271(1) (c). The CIT (A) upheld

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

68,14,038. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously on all the above