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)

68 of the Act will not be justified. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to perform his right empowered by the statute of issuing notice to the other parties under section 133

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) is not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

68 of the Act has retrospective effect without appreciating that the said proviso casts a fresh burden on the appellant to establish the source of the source of share application money received and hence, the same cannot be regarded as having retrospective operation. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies

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

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

133 taxmann.com 48 (Rajasthan) “It is declared that the Ordinance, the Enabling Act and sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 1-4-2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31-3-2021 and 27-4-2021 (respectively) are concerned

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

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) is not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) is not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

section 133(6), as all the: lenders, lame and Address were provided during the course of Assessment Proceedings by the Appellant. 9. The Appellant objects the levy of Interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the above additions. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

section 133(6), as all the: lenders, lame and Address were provided during the course of Assessment Proceedings by the Appellant. 9. The Appellant objects the levy of Interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the above additions. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

133(6) of the Act, is not economically valid. In doing so, the learned TPO erred in rejecting companies such as Akshay Software Technologies Limited, Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Silverline Technologies Limited, Zylog Systems Limited and VJIL Consulting Limited. 6.15 in not maintaining consistency in applying the filters of rejecting companies with abnormal fluctuating margin, diminishing revenue/ persistent losses

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

133(6) in tappal/manually instead of replying by mail. All the above conclusions/finding in the appellate order are erroneous, not based on evidence or documents but are made totally on conjectures and surmises and hence are to be totally disregarded. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has also erred in holding that the provisions of section 68