AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Section\n68 cannot apply where no amount is credited during the year,\nSection 68 applies only to fresh credits in that year. These\ndecisions fully demolish the AO's addition.\n(c) The foundational Calcutta High Court ruling Jatia\nInvestment Co. (206

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

section 68, has held that it is not just an entry of cash credit in the books of account that would create liability of explanation from the assessee, but, there should be an actual flow of funds. Once the flow of funds is established, then, the question of explanation from the assessee actually arises. Thus, we are inclined

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

206 ITR 727 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that the Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court within whose jurisdiction it functions. The Hon’ble Court also clarified that decisions of other High Courts have only persuasive value. The relevant finding is extracted below: For deciding whose decision

MERCHANTS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

206. Dist. Bagalkot. PAN : AAAAM 0702C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ashok Mudnur, CA Respondent by : Shri Mehere Yogesh Prabhakara Rao, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051572681(1) dated 29.03.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

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

206.\nPAN: AALAS 7428L\nAPPELLANT\nWard 1,\nBagalkot.\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by : Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate\nRespondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel.\nDate of hearing : 21.02.2024\nDate of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024\nORDER\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member\nThis appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated\n20.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,\nDelhi

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors

GANGOTHRI VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no unexplained credit. Hence, section 69C/68 of the Act is not applicable. Section 69C of the Act is applicable with regard to any unexplained expenditure in the financial year which is in the opinion of the ld. AO not satisfactorily explained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

206/-, arising on slump sale of ‘Splash’ division as per section 50B of the Act, and the computation was determined to be as under: Particulars Amount in Rs. Book value of the Division 22,35,71,677 Net-worth of the Division as 23,66,68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

68 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 69 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 70 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 71 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 72 of 155 15. On the other hand, the learned DR relied

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

206, order giving effect, – 44, rectification – 48, modified assessment orders – 11, verification – 26, deemed information – 6, and notice under section 153C – 7 were pending with him. Therefore, the total No. of 541 actions were pending in the month of March. 8. Over and above, it was stated that there were more than 73 audit objections having tax impact