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. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

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. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

68. The general rule as laid down in section 161(1) is that income received by a trustee on behalf of the beneficiary shall be assessed in the hands of the trustee as representative assessee and such assessment shall be made and the tax thereon shall be levied upon and be recovered from the representative assessee 'in like manner

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

section 68 of the Act and it also furnished the details of receipt and repayment of the advance amount and had established identity of the third party in relation to the said amount. j. Reliance is placed on the following. (i) Bharatbhai Manubhai Baldha[2023] 150 taxmann.com 66 (Surat-Trib.) “if assessment is being completed on the basis

CLESTRA FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2023-24

68,549 Total Tax 13,86,185 17,82,267 Clestra Foundation, Bangalore Page 3 of 14 Thus the assessee calculated the surcharge of Rs.81,981/- i.e. at the rate of 37% on the Tax on Interest income only and not on Dividend Income on the ground that the surcharge is not applicable for Income below Rs.50 lakhs, whereas

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

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act. 10. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the main issue is with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loan standing in the name

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act. 10. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the main issue is with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loan standing in the name

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, as held in the following decisions. 1) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) (77 Taxmann.com 245) (SC) 2) Principal CIT, Central III Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ltd. 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 3) CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (164 Taxman 78) (SC) 4) CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VIJAY JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, as held in the following decisions. 1) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) (77 Taxmann.com 245) (SC) 2) Principal CIT, Central III Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ltd. 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 3) CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (164 Taxman 78) (SC) 4) CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, as held in the following decisions. 1) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) (77 Taxmann.com 245) (SC) 2) Principal CIT, Central III Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ltd. 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 3) CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (164 Taxman 78) (SC) 4) CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits exemption by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits exemption by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that

SMT MADHU SOLANKI,MYSORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear:1998-99

164, the Ld. A.R. submitted that even trade creditors can be assessed u/s 68 of the Act. 14. We have heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. The undisputed fact is that the assessing officer has made addition of outstanding trade creditors u/s 68 of the Act. The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added

M/S. YELAHANKA - AP BORDER TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

68 of the Act and not Section 41(1) as done by the AO. In the case of Suresh Kumar T. Jain [2011] 128 ITD 74, Bangalore dated 08.01.2010 the Page 7 of 8 jurisdictional ITAT, Bangalore upheld the action of the AO in similar circumstances. The said decision has already been upheld by the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

68,400/- which is actual dividend income claimed as exemption. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify either all or any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

68,400/- which is actual dividend income claimed as exemption. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify either all or any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI, BALLARI vs. MS AL BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BALLARI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the\nappeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "12A", "143(1)", "133A", "132(4)", "164(2)", "11", "12", "10(23C)(iv)", "68", "153A", "153D", "234A", "234B