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 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

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

68,52,83,845 Interest income of Infosys Consulting India Limited 2,16,673 pursuant to amalgamation Interest on loan to subsidiaries 2,64,49,273 Interest on deposits with banks & other institutions 1656,82,88,192 Total 1728,02,37,983 Infosys Limited Page 5 of 20 The aforesaid incomes were offered to tax under the head ‘Income from

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

STATE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,NAGADEVANAHALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,RAJAJINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 10(5) of the Act does not place any bar on travel to a foreign destination in the course of travel to a place in India. The appellant also submitted that it was following the guidelines laid down by the Indian Bankers Association 9IBA) to reimburse the LTC claim on travel within or outside India. However

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

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

10 of 22 pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of section 68. The second proviso to section 68 (inserted by the Finance Act 2012, with effect from 1st April 2013), which provides that in cases where assessee is a closely held company, and any sum is found credited by way of share capital, share application money, share

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

5)\nBANGALORE- 2024 (7) TMI 1421 ITAT BANGALORE\ndeleted the addition and held that It is well settled law that\naddition u/s.68 of the Act can be made only during the year in\nwhich such credits has been received and if the credit balances\nappearing in the account of the assessee is not pertaining to the\nyear under consideration

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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,22,29,000/- representing cash deposits made in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 allows the AO to make addition for the sums credited in the books of accounts maintained

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

5)\nBANGALORE- 2024 (7) TMI 1421 ITAT BANGALORE\ndeleted the addition and held that It is well settled law that\naddition u/s.68 of the Act can be made only during the year in\nwhich such credits has been received and if the credit balances\nappearing in the account of the assessee is not pertaining to the\nyear under consideration

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

5)\nBANGALORE- 2024 (7) TMI 1421 ITAT BANGALORE\ndeleted the addition and held that It is well settled law that\naddition u/s.68 of the Act can be made only during the year in\nwhich such credits has been received and if the credit balances\nappearing in the account of the assessee is not pertaining to the\nyear under consideration

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

10 I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 maintain such books of account and other documents as required under sub-section (2) of section 44AA and get them audited and furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB." 13. From the combined reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (5), it is apparent that

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account