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

section 68 of the assessee company. (2) CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [2001] 115 Taxman 99 (SC) : It was held that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. It might be that

PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

194 (SC) on the issue of additions under section 68 held that “It is for the assessee to prove

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

68 or tax\nthe same u/s 115BBE again. I am of the view that in the light\nof the facts and circumstances of the present case, the addition\nmade is not sustainable and the same is directed to be deleted.\"\n12. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Purani\nHospital Supplies Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.489/Chny/2022

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

194 (SC) on the issue of additions under section 68 held that “It is for the assessee to prove

M/S. BRAHMI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

194/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 4. The main issue raised in this appeal is cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period. As per Central Govt. Notification in F.No.10/03/2016-Cy.I dated

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

194, 4th Cross, Lalbagh Road DCIT KS Garden Circle-1(1)(1) Vs. Karnataka 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCB0405E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.N. Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by assessee are directed

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

194, 4th Cross, Lalbagh Road DCIT KS Garden Circle-1(1)(1) Vs. Karnataka 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCB0405E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.N. Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by assessee are directed

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

68, 70 (30/04/2011), 352, 353) and on the record of the revenue, has not been scrutinized and the AO was not justified in making a passing mention that a substantial portion of the confirmations were not satisfactory, without having verified the same. k. In view of the above, the appellant submits that she has made every effort to comply with

SRITHERUMALLESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 69A and taxing u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee furnished reply on 24.09.2019 and also submitted Income & Expenditure Statement, Profit & Loss account and details of amount deposited in Vijaya Bank during the demonetization period. Directions u/s. 144A was sought from the Range Head and accordingly it was directed that net profit to be adopted at Rs.8

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

194 BB would not apply to stake money is and such stake monies are not regarded as winning from horse races or races, but constitute prize-money which the owner of a race horse is proceeds on account of his horse winning a position in the race. It was also submitted that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, with regard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

194 BB would not apply to stake money is and such stake monies are not regarded as winning from horse races or races, but constitute prize-money which the owner of a race horse is proceeds on account of his horse winning a position in the race. It was also submitted that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, with regard

M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

68,761 53,58,659 1,33,19,808 2,86,47,228 3. 2012-13 72,97,077 38,92,163 90,83,794 2,02,73,034 4. 2013-14 61,02,462 50,52,139 1,22,32,302 2,33,86,903 Total

M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

68,761 53,58,659 1,33,19,808 2,86,47,228 3. 2012-13 72,97,077 38,92,163 90,83,794 2,02,73,034 4. 2013-14 61,02,462 50,52,139 1,22,32,302 2,33,86,903 Total

M/S. GMS HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

68,761 53,58,659 1,33,19,808 2,86,47,228 3. 2012-13 72,97,077 38,92,163 90,83,794 2,02,73,034 4. 2013-14 61,02,462 50,52,139 1,22,32,302 2,33,86,903 Total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

68,761 53,58,659 1,33,19,808 2,86,47,228 3. 2012-13 72,97,077 38,92,163 90,83,794 2,02,73,034 4. 2013-14 61,02,462 50,52,139 1,22,32,302 2,33,86,903 Total

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

68 of the Act. Ground No. 8 relates to the issue of 6 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan disallowance business expenditure to the tune of Rs.5,47,900/-. We shall adjudicate the above issues as under. Grounds 1 to 5 (Technical Grounds) 6. In the above grounds, the assessee contends that the AO who passed the assessment order at Madurai does

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Page 16 of 18 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been

PRAVESH KOTHARI L/H OF SOHANRAJ KHIMRAJ KOTHARI ,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, HUBLI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

68,846/- Disallowance of rent - Rs. 96,000/- Depreciation disallowed - Rs. 49,208/- 3.Aggrieved by additions made, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A) who upheld the same. 4. Aggrieved by additions made by Ld.CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 4.1.Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. 4.3. Ground No.2 is in respect

SMT. NANDINI B LINGEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

section 68 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the confirmation letter of M/s. S & S Polymers appearing at page No. 82 of the compilation according to which the outstanding amount of Rs.3,53,123.84/- was shown in the accounts of the creditors against the amount of Rs.3,53,123/- shown