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

5,66,28,098 and even after adjusting the losses in the subsequent years, the net income of the remitter is seen to be $ 33,12,256 whereas the remittance by him to the present assessee in the present year is only $1,000,006.53. Hence it is seen that the net income after adjusting losses incurred by the remitter

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

5,66,28,098 and even after adjusting the losses in the subsequent years, the net income of the remitter is seen to be $ 33,12,256 whereas the remittance by him to the present assessee in the present year is only $1,000,006.53. Hence it is seen that the net income after adjusting losses incurred by the remitter

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

5,66,28,098 and even after adjusting the losses in the subsequent years, the net income of the remitter is seen to be $ 33,12,256 whereas the remittance by him to the present assessee in the present year is only $1,000,006.53. Hence it is seen that the net income after adjusting losses incurred by the remitter

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

68,097/- in Chikmagalur District Page 2 of 8 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issue on 24.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring Nil income. Assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

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

68. Assessee has to establish identity and\ncreditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of\nthe transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and\nnot exclusive.\n(vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof is not\na static one. As per the provisions of the section the initial\nburden of proof lies

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

68. Assessee has to establish identity and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 22 creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. (vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof is not a static one. As per the provisions of the section the initial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

5 SCC\n23] it has been held that there is no fixed formula for the expression of\nlegislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment. Every\nlegislation whether prospective or retrospective has to be subjected to\nthe question of legislative competence. The retrospectivity is liable to\nbe decided on a few touchstones such as: (i) the words used must\nexpressly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

5 SCC\n23] it has been held that there is no fixed formula for the expression of\nlegislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment. Every\nlegislation whether prospective or retrospective has to be subjected to\nthe question of legislative competence. The retrospectivity is liable to\nbe decided on a few touchstones such as: (i) the words used must\nexpressly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

5 SCC\n23] it has been held that there is no fixed formula for the expression of\nlegislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment. Every\nlegislation whether prospective or retrospective has to be subjected to\nthe question of legislative competence. The retrospectivity is liable to\nbe decided on a few touchstones such as: (i) the words used must\nexpressly

BHAVASAR NAMDEV SIMPI SAMAJ SAHAKAR SANGH LTD,DANDELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

68,438/- and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not required to file return of income because of its Page 6 of 8 income below the threshold limit of tax and assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2). We reject this arguments of the ld. AR since the deduction can be claimed under

SHREE JAGADGURU MOUNESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT KERUR,BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purpose

sections": ["68", "115BBE", "80P", "80A(5)", "139", "142(1)", "69A", "80AC"], "issues": "Whether cash deposits in SBNs during demonetisation

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

5 to 7 in connection therewith. It is the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has made substantial compliance by making investment in residential property on or before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. The assessee had made investment

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance

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

5 of the Act. This raises the question whether an administrative tribunal can ignore the law declared by the highest court in the State and initiate proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared. Under Art,. 215, every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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

139(1) of the Act. The appellant for the AY 2018-19 earned a share of profit of Rs. 81,07,690/- as his Page 5 of 16 25% share from the partnership firm M/s Classic Plantation and Rs. 1,33,369/- as share of profit from M/s Classic Advertising. 5. It is submitted, that the appellant for the said

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5), the claim for deduction under section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1-4-2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5), the claim for deduction under section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1-4-2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year. 23.3 It is clear that there are three conditions. The authorities below have not doubted the condition of furnishing the documents i.e. intimation in form 10A in respect of accumulation or setting a-part of the income for the purpose for which the income is accumulated. 23.4 In light