ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

12 are regular taxpayers. Copies of their ITRs and\naudited financial statements were submitted to substantiate their\ncreditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The AR argued\nthat the assessee had adequately discharged the primary onus under Section\n68 of the Act by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the\ncreditor, as well as the genuineness of the transactions

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. Assessee has to establish identity and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 22 creditworthiness of the creditor

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

12. It has been vehemently canvassed by Ld.AR that passbook/bank statement obtained from a bank do not construe “books of account” of assessee, as defined under section 2(12A) of the Act. It is also been proposed by Ld.AR that section 68

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

section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of an amount of ₹56,07,00,000,\nbeing the share premium arising on allotment of 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) during\nthe year. The learned AO has proceeded on an incorrect factual\nassumption that the assessee received this amount during the\nrelevant previous year. The addition

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

section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of an amount of ₹56,07,00,000,\nbeing the share premium arising on allotment of 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) during\nthe year. The learned AO has proceeded on an incorrect factual\nassumption that the assessee received this amount during the\nrelevant previous year. The addition

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

12,74,930/- was made between November 1 and November 7, 2016, • ₹6,72,68,168/- was made on a single day, November 8, 2016, and • The remaining cash sales for the month of November 2016 amounted to ₹38 lakh. 5. Accordingly, the AO raised a question regarding the genuineness of the cash sales made during November 2016, through

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

section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of an amount of ₹56,07,00,000,\nbeing the share premium arising on allotment of 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) during\nthe year. The learned AO has proceeded on an incorrect factual\nassumption that the assessee received this amount during the\nrelevant previous year. The addition

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

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

Section 68 arises in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67. The co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order dt.8.9.2016 in the case of Mrs. Farah Kausar Vs. ITO (supra) after considering a series

ARJUN SHETTY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TPS, CIRCLE - 1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

12 of 16 appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside, for the reasons discussed above. Additions under section 68

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

12. Following the above decision, we remit this issue in the above terms to the AO. 20.7 In view of the above facts, legal position, and judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained credit under section 68

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. 11. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that addition is to be sustained. 12

SMT.ASHA SURENDRA KUMAR,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

Section 68 arises in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67. The co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal dt. 8.9.2016 in the case of Mrs. Farah Kausar Vs. ITO (supra) after considering a series

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

12,05,429/- (Rs. 2,18,38,160/- (-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

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

12,05,429/- (Rs. 2,18,38,160/- (-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68,855/- for Assessment Year 2012-13; by including therein the corpus donations received in each of those years. 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment dated 27.03.2015 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A)-14, LTU, Bangalore, which were dismissed vide the impugned orders dated 25.11.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68,855/- for Assessment Year 2012-13; by including therein the corpus donations received in each of those years. 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment dated 27.03.2015 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A)-14, LTU, Bangalore, which were dismissed vide the impugned orders dated 25.11.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved