ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 was allowed by the Revenue in assessments framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The first issue that arises is whether the Revenue can take a different stand in the assessee’s own case for the current year as compared to the stance adopted in the earlier years or subsequent years. While the principle of res judicata

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 was allowed by the Revenue in assessments framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The first issue that arises is whether the Revenue can take a different stand in the assessee’s own case for the current year as compared to the stance adopted in the earlier years or subsequent years. While the principle of res judicata

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

11, 12 & 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without prejudice to the fact of granting merely in principle registration by DIT(E). (ii) With effect from the Assessment Year 2009-10, the advancement of any object of general public utility other than relief of the poor, education and medical relief as defined in section

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

Section 68 can be invoked when following three conditions are satisfied (a) when there is credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee, (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year, (c) either the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found in the books

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

section 68 of the Act has to fail because as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Mohammed Hanif Mahommed Yusuf Dharwadkar, Hubli Page 11

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

68 of the Act. . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 25 4. The relevant facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the retail trading of jewelry, gold, silver, and other ornaments. The assessee's case for the assessment year under consideration was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and accordingly, a notice under Section

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 11(1)” but did not exercised his option by e- filing Form-9A before due date as per Rule-17 of the Income Tax Rules. Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangha (R), Chitradurga Page 4 of 13 4.1 The AR of the assessee by way of written submission stated that the assessee trust filed its return of income disclosing

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

11(2) of the Act for Rs. 20,39,64,223/- and Rs. 116,20,04,892/- respectively. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. . Page 3 of 30 6. The assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted that the Karnataka Government had set up various government organizations and departments to handle tender-related and other IT projects

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

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; and ii) in concluding that these expenses were not in the nature of irrecoverable debts covered within section 36(1)(vii). 7.2 Without prejudice to the above, even if the said amount is added back to the total income, the same is exempt from tax under section 11

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; and ii) in concluding that these expenses were not in the nature of irrecoverable debts covered within section 36(1)(vii). 7.2 Without prejudice to the above, even if the said amount is added back to the total income, the same is exempt from tax under section 11

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

11. In the case of Kamal Kumar Mishra in ITA No.398/LKW/2012, it is held as under : The aforesaid provisions of section 68

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,068/- after disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/- claimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of improvement. 2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the following were noticed: • That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under capital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of property situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; and ii) in concluding that these expenses were not in the nature of irrecoverable debts covered within section 36(1)(vii). 7.2 Without prejudice to the above, even if the said amount is added back to the total income, the same is exempt from tax under section 11

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; and ii) in concluding that these expenses were not in the nature of irrecoverable debts covered within section 36(1)(vii). 7.2 Without prejudice to the above, even if the said amount is added back to the total income, the same is exempt from tax under section 11

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, despite the fact that the Appellant has duly explained the source of such impugned unsecured loans. 10. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in alleging that bank statements and return of income were not furnished during the appellate proceedings, despite the fact that these documents formed part of the appellant's submissions. 11