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

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

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.

68 of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of AO in disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments

SHRI. VIJAY MAHANTESH TRADING COMPANY,NAVALGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the partner of the firm, Ms. Shivaleela S. Bagi, along with her three sons had received a sum of Rs. 48 lakhs as refundable deposit pursuant

BASAPPA RAMESH,BANGALORE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

68. With regard to findings given by the CIT(A) that as per the cash receipt statement for the period 01/04/2016 to 31/07/2016 the cash receipt of Rs.5,67,850/- only, the ld AR submitted that the said amount is the collection for the month of July 2016 alone (page 155 of the paper book) and not for the aforesaid

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

ARIF,SHIMOGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Arif Vs Acit, Circle - 1 Nehru Nagar, Sagar I.T. Office, No.75, 100Ft Road Shimoga 577401 Gopal Gowda Extension Pan – Adapa8762G Shimoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A),/Ncac, Delhi Dated 10.08.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “I The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre("Nfac") Dated 10-Aug-2022, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. Ii The Order Is Passed In Haste, Without Providing Sufficient & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. Iii The Order Is Passed Against The Principle Of Natural Justice & Thus Liable To Be Quashed. Iv The Learned Cit (Appeal) Erred By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.11,66,999/-, Even Though The Appellant Furnished Evidence In Support Of His Claim.

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further he submitted that the AO for making the addition considered the sales only for 10 days before the demonetisation 3 Shri Arif period with the average sales of prior three months. According to the learned A.R. the learned AO ought to have considered the average sales

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

M/S. KARNATAKA HITECH AGRO ENTERPRISES,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 16 8. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax is not justified in substituting his view of taxing the declaration during survey under the head - Income from other sources, with that of the view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer