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

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

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

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

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 to section 69A of the Act regarding the impugned cash deposits. This is in contravention of the powers under section 251

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

68 of the Act, but rather relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of P.V. Ajay Narayan (supra) without providing any opportunity to the assessee and thereby also violating the provisions laid down in section 251

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarificatory and hence retrospective. He supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee received alleged money from M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises No. 25 & 26, 2nd BMT Complex, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore- 560003. The details

C.N.BABU ,RAMANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , RAMANAGARA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

68 of the Act and the same is liable to be annulled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In so far as the facts in relation to ground Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, it is seen from the order of the AO that in the very same bank account referred to in ground No.2 above, the assessee

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

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

251(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.69,11,858/-: 3.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the disallowance wrongly made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.69,11,858/- on the payments made

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

68,997/- to the value of fringe benefits declared in the return. III. With regard to the claim of recruitment expenses, the AO observed that the expenses are in the nature of travel re- imbursements to assessee’s employees which are chargeable fringe benefits under the Act. He, therefore, brought 20% of the same to tax as fringe benefits

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

68,997/- to the value of fringe benefits declared in the return. III. With regard to the claim of recruitment expenses, the AO observed that the expenses are in the nature of travel re- imbursements to assessee’s employees which are chargeable fringe benefits under the Act. He, therefore, brought 20% of the same to tax as fringe benefits

SYED MAQSOODULLA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Syed Maqsoodulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.14, 7Th “A’ Cross Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore. ‘D’ Block, Magadi Road Bangalore-560023. [Pan:Cycps 3116F]

251(2) of the I.T. Act. Further, he submitted that the AO had not considered opening balance in support of the Bank account. It was also submitted that the assessee had made frequent withdrawals from the Bank account and re-deposited the same. He further submitted that the deposits in the Bank account cannot be considered, only the peak credit

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 69 of the Act. xiv. The Assessing Officer was correct in looking at the real transaction with respect to the share application money by lifting the veil and creating nexus with the investment to the seized documents. The failure on the part of the assessee to demonstrate the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the course

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act. 10. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the main issue is with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loan standing in the name

BAJAJ CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DCIT-1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act. 10. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the main issue is with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loan standing in the name

BHARATKUMAR RAJASHREE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

68 of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 33,45,000/- (1/3rd of the entire amount for being joint holder of the account with other two members) made by the Ld. AO is sustainable. 5.7. Hence, respectfully following the above mentioned judicial pronouncements and in view of the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal filed

M/S. K.N.R ROFFING PVT LTD.,,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, TUMKUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Membe Assessment Year : 2015-16

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] 13. Though the assessee did not file ledger accounts to prove the quantum of opening balance appearing in the various creditors account, the same ought to have been looked into by the CIT(Appeals), in exercise of powers under Rule 46A(4) of the Rules. It is always open

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 69 of the Act. xiv. The Assessing Officer was correct in looking at the real transaction with respect to the share application money by lifting the veil and creating nexus with the investment to the payments made by the assessee as found and reflected in the seized documents. The failure on the part of the assessee to demonstrate

M/S PROMPTEC RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , BANGALORE

In the result, all these 17 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,400, Rs. 40,800, Rs.60,200, Rs. 2200, Rs. 29,200, Rs. 22,400, Rs. 41,800 under section 234E of the Act towards delay in filing the TDS return. 3. That the learned ACIT erred in law and on facts in levying fee under section 234E of the Act even, though mode and manner of enforceability

M/S PROMPTEC RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTION PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these 17 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,400, Rs. 40,800, Rs.60,200, Rs. 2200, Rs. 29,200, Rs. 22,400, Rs. 41,800 under section 234E of the Act towards delay in filing the TDS return. 3. That the learned ACIT erred in law and on facts in levying fee under section 234E of the Act even, though mode and manner of enforceability