ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS 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

68 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that part of the share capital represented company’s own income from undisclosed sources. The similar view has been taken by the High Courts. 17. As the Apex Court has considered the law in Lovely Exports (Supra

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

6. For these grounds which are without prejudice to each other and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing, this appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.” 3.2.1 From a perusal of the grounds raised, it is seen that all of them challenge the action of the CIT (Appeals) in invoking the provisions of section

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)

68 of the Act will not be justified. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to perform his right empowered by the statute of issuing notice to the other parties under section 133(6} of the Act or to cross-examine them. It is a well-established principle of natural justice that the evidence filed

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

250 of the Act dated 13.11.2024 to the extent which is against him, has filed this present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal by raising several grounds. 15. The core issue in this appeal is that whether the CIT(A) was justified in affirming the action of the learned AO in making an addition 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

250 of the Act dated 21.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised extensive grounds of appeal numbered as Ground No. 1 to 17 running into multiple pages. Hence, we are not inclined to reproduce the same here for the sake of brevity and convenience. ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 2 of 32 3. The Ground

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

250 of the Act, both dated 19.10.2023. 2. First, we will take up the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.837/Bang/2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances

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

250 of the Act, both dated 19.10.2023. 2. First, we will take up the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.837/Bang/2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances

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

250/ 2023-24/1061142348(1) dated 19/02/2024 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the authorities below insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors and genuineness of transactions. Moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided. vii. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had returned majority of the amount received as advance before

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) dated:09.12.2021 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated:14.02.2018. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing

MUDHOL PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA,MUDHOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita, Vs. Acit, Gokul Complex, Gandhi Circle, Mudhol, Circle – 1, Mudhol Dist, Bagalkot – 587 313, Hassan. Karnataka. Pan : Aaeam 7882 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. The learned Assessing Officer's order is opposed to the Facts of the case and law. 2. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the facts of the case

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the orders of the authorities below in so far as it is against the assessee is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 29,50,000/- as unexplained investments under section

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 29,50,000/- as unexplained investments under section

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is\n2017-18.\n2.\nThe grounds raised read as follows:\n1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the\nappellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities,\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n2. The learned

SHRI. DEVAL PATTAN PATTIN SAHAKARA SANGH NIYAMIT,ILKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

250 of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18. Page 2 of 10 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. MOHAMMED FAROOQ KANANA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

250 of the Act, vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075141050(1) dated 27.08.2025 on the following grounds;- 1. The learned CIT(A), NaFAC has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of agricultural income, despite the fact that the assessee failed to furnish complete and reliable documentary evidence to substantiate the claim

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

6. The lower authorities have erred in levying interests of Rs. 47,77,410/-under section 234B and Rs.1,14,456/- under section 234C. 7. The Learned CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying interests of Rs.47,77,410/- under section 234B and Rs.1,14,456/- under section