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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

21 of 22 discharged its initial onus under Section 68, and any addition made without further investigation or rebuttal of the evidence provided by the assessee would be untenable in law. 19. In view of the above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of credits in his books and consequently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

5 of 25 Additionally, the assessee did not provide confirmation from all creditors, and the purchase bills submitted lacked itemized details. 8. Based on the above observations, the AO concluded that out of the total cash sales of ₹7.23 crores recorded in November 2016, only ₹61.64 lakh (the average monthly cash sales) could be considered genuine. Consequently, the AO treated

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

5), it is apparent that the obligation to maintain the books of account and get them audited is only on the assessee who opts to claim the income being less than 8% of the gross receipts.” 7.3 Now coming to the argument of the learned D.R. that the addition has been made under section 68

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

section 68 of the Act merely on the grounds that assessee was not authorised to receive SBN during the demonetisation. We are also conscious to facts that the AO proceeded to make addition without verifying the details provided by the assessee, explaining the nature and source of the credit. Therefore, we, for the sake of justice and fair play

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

21 confirmed by NFAC. Against these orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, assessee’s liability is to explain the nature and source of money credited in his books of accounts in the relevant assessment year. He submitted that assessee has explained

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

21 confirmed by NFAC. Against these orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, assessee’s liability is to explain the nature and source of money credited in his books of accounts in the relevant assessment year. He submitted that assessee has explained

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

68,52,83,845 Interest income of Infosys Consulting India Limited 2,16,673 pursuant to amalgamation Interest on loan to subsidiaries 2,64,49,273 Interest on deposits with banks & other institutions 1656,82,88,192 Total 1728,02,37,983 Infosys Limited Page 5 of 20 The aforesaid incomes were offered to tax under the head ‘Income from

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

21,98,000/- as additions under section 68 of the Act, despite the fact that the appellant has provided corroborative evidence in support of his claim. Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore Page 2 of 25 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in disbelieving that the impugned cash deposits were proceeds from the professional receipts already offered for tax. 5

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

68 of the Act, itself is not maintainable, sustainable and justified for the reasons as mentioned in the above paragraphs and consequently the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. b) The appellant submits he has only bank interest income as income from other sources (Page 51 of the paper book). Therefore, under no stretch

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

21-2-2013]. SLP filed by the Revenue is dismissed in ACIT vs. Zuari Cement [SLP CC No. 16694 of 2013, dated 29.07.2013];\n• Control Risk India Pvt. Limited vs. DCIT WP (C) 5722/2017 & C.M. No. 23860/2017 (Delhi); SLP dismissed in Dy. CIT v. Control Risk India (P.) Ltd. [SLP No. 7090 of 2018];\n• Cisco Systems Capital (India

MR. GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR,DAHRWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

5), it is apparent that the obligation to maintain the books of account and get them audited is only on the assessee who opts to claim the income being less than 8% of the gross receipts.” 14.3 Now coming to the argument of the learned D.R. that the addition has been made under section 68

MR.GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

5), it is apparent that the obligation to maintain the books of account and get them audited is only on the assessee who opts to claim the income being less than 8% of the gross receipts.” 14.3 Now coming to the argument of the learned D.R. that the addition has been made under section 68

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

21. The Ld. AR before us contended that the amount of FD’s appearing in the financial statements were free from any lien and therefore the same can be considered as investment for the year in dispute under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. The revenue has not pointed out any defect in the financial statement

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

21. The Ld. AR before us contended that the amount of FD’s appearing in the financial statements were free from any lien and therefore the same can be considered as investment for the year in dispute under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. The revenue has not pointed out any defect in the financial statement

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. Grounds on addition made under section 68, Rs.17,67,740/-: a. The learned assessing officer has erred in treating the increase of unsecured loan of Rs.17,67,74o/- during the year as unexplained in terms of section 68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The provision of section 68

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

21 of 64 Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if the other Income tax authority also agrees then the question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to the CBDT. So, once the Assessing Officer of an assessee is vested with the jurisdiction u/s. 124, read

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

21 of 64 Chief Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners as stipulated therein) then if the other Income tax authority also agrees then the question will be resolved mutually or else it will be referred to the CBDT. So, once the Assessing Officer of an assessee is vested with the jurisdiction u/s. 124, read