T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

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

214 ITR 801) (SC), it was held that in view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

214, Karnataka. PAN :AEWPJ 4330 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against order passed by the CIT(A) 27.06.2024 with SEPARATE DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1066130511(1) & DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1066130390

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.

section 68 are not applicable and the addition made U/s. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 as confirmed by Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is to be deleted. 11. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 12. In view of the above and other

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 Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

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 Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

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 Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

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 Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

214,\nKarnataka.\nPAN :AEWPJ 4330 E\nAPPELLANT\n\nVs.\n\nDCIT,\nCentral Circle – 1(2),\nBangalore.\nRESPONDENT\n\nAssessee by\nShri. Ramesh, CA\nRevenue by\nShri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.\n\nDate of hearing\n14.05.2025\nDate of Pronouncement: 26.05.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :\n\nThese two appeals are filed by the assessee against order

M/S. GREENS FARM TECH PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the Act fastens the liability on the assessee to make proper and . Page 11 of 14 reasonable explanation regarding the nature and sources of sum credited in the books to the satisfaction of the AO. The assessee is liable to provide proof of the identity of the lenders, establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness

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

68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a HUF, has filed its return of income declaring income from other sources and exempted LTCG. The assessee in the return of income has claimed exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under section

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

Section 68 of the 1961 Act, as stated in the assessment order. Indisputably, the Officer gave several opportunities to the appellant/assessee to prove the authenticitp of the entries in question. As a matter of fact, summon notices were issued to the named fifteen creditors, but no evidence/explanation was forthcoming. The finding of fact so recorded by the Officer

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: -

Section 68 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved, assessee raised this issue before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) relied on the following Tribunal orders to decide the issue against the assessee. [The tribunal orders had followed the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 10 Shri

SRI BUDDAN GOWDA ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

214 under Section 143(3) dt.27.12.2010. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings the assessee could not reconcile the cash balances for repayment of bank loan and has not pressed this disputed issue dealt by CIT (Appeals) at page 4 para 4.3 and was dismissed. Whereas in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S BENGALURU LEISURE PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68. 5. In support, Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions: • Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs Subash Chander Aggarwal reported in 172 ITR 166 • Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs.Volimohemad Ahmedbhai, reported in 134 ITR 214

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

68,805. Addition of provision no longer required amounting to INR 5. 9,41,162 under section 37 of the Act. a) The AO erred in adding the provision for expense no longer required to the total income of the Appellant amounting to INR 9,41,162. 3,20,173 b) The AO disregarded the fact that the said

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

214 (Cuttack Trib.)\nc) Decision of ITAT Delhi ‘B’Bench in the case of Cinestaan\nEntertainment P. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward 6(2), New Delhi reported\nin (2019) 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi Trib.)\nd) Decision of ITAT Bangalore ‘C' Bench in the case of I-Exceed\nTechnology Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward-3(1) Bengaluru\nreported