SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- Α.Υ. 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Contract charges as per ledger 7,05,000/- 26,36,554/- 4,29,759/- 99,000/- iii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

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

2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income from SUCO bank. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 22 of 32 14. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 9 to 13 of the appeal pertains to the treatment of Rs. 31,03,300/- representing the deposits

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

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

2. Since in both the appeals, the issue involved are similar regarding addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 22 deleted by the CIT(A). The assessment was completed for the AY 2015-16 U/s 147/143(3) and for the AY 2016-17 was completed

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

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

2) was issued & served to the assessee on 28.06.2021 . In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details of parties to whom interest had been

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 234A and 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. Total tax effect Rs.2,08,12,152/- 2. The registry has noted that there was a delay of 74 in filing the appeal

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

142(1) were issued. Thereafter, the assessee had suomoto offered a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs as his Page 3 of 14 unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO stated that the assessee had made a claim of setting off of brought forward losses of Rs. 45,18,838/- which was originally accepted by the CPC while processing