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 by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

68 of the Act in place of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, the learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the issue, at para 3.16 of the order, held that the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores is to be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section

M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

68 or section 115BBE of the Act. If you need any further information we are more than happy to furnish the same even at a short notice and oblige." 4.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that a perusal of the query in show cause notice shows that the query was pertaining to directors who are related parties. The details were

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that for a sum so credited to be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year by the AO; (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money

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

208. Hubballi – 580 025. PAN – AAGFS 0504 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of hearing : 23.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act. Instead, the cash movements were simply transfers from the head office of M/s. MACEL in Bangalore to its branch office at Chikkamagaluru, carried physically by Mr. Ankith and Mr. Rachith. These transactions were properly recorded in both the head office and branch office books of MACEL, which is an independent company assessed separately