DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice

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

10 of 25 make sale to any customer when stock is available and if it is within the four corners of law, especially when price of the gold was high and there is demand for gold at that time of the day. If minimum details of the customers are taken on sale bills as required under a VAT Act, that

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

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

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

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

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

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 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. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 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

SMT.MANJUSHREE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

10(2), Vasantha-Vallabha Nagar, Bengaluru. Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru-560 061 PAN AIVPM 5615L Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P. Dinesh, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 23.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.15.12.2016 of Commissioner

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)

10 of the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act the learned Assessing Officer has stated that the Assessee has not submitted any details regarding the expenditure incurred on earning agricultural income and the sources for such expenditure but the Assessee has duly submitted the required documents before the learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Consequently

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

10 of 32 carrying the business of banking or providing credit facilities to the members. The argument of the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facility to the members are that the surplus fund for which members are not immediately seeking credits are deposited with bank as a prudent business decision shall be attributed to the business only and therefore

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

23,751. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.9.2009. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and after recording reasons in this regard, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 18.4.2012. As per the record, apparently after receipt of the assessee's reply

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

23,50,000/- to lenders through Banking Channels by AO, which was claimed in Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s.148. 5. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation of loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking provisions of section 133(6), as all the lenders

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS),WARD-18(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS I P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed

Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for Assessment Years 2009- 10 to 2011-12 raising demands as under :- S.No. Asst. Year Date of order Demand Raised (Rs) U/s. 201(1) U/s. 201(1A) 1. 2009-10 19.3.2013 23,78,937 12,93,117 2. 2010-11 19.3.2013 42,59,313 17,68

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

68,380/- ought to be allowed as a deduction, in view of the settled position of law. He relied on following judgements: - CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. (reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay)- para 7); - PCIT v. Mphasis Ltd. (reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in this case as the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts. Further, the P&L account and balance sheet filed by the assessee before the assessing authority cannot be considered as a books of accounts, as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, the view of ours fortified

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

10. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we note that here is delay of 167 days in filing before the CIT(A) NFAC which has not been condoned. The counsel of the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was mainly due to persistent technical difficulties faced