AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Section 68 cannot be applied in the present year. The\nRevenue cannot tax earlier-year credits in a later year.\n(f) The Bombay High Court Ivan Singh v. ACIT (272

PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

section 68 of the Act Page 2 of 10 ii. Addition of Rs.6,97,272/- under section 69Cof

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

272 ITR 371. In these cases the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court have discussed the powers of CIT under Section 263 of the Act, to remand the matter. If the twin conditions namely that the order of AO sought to be revised is erroneous, and it also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are satisfied

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

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is clearly not based on any incriminating material seized from the assessee. 3.4.3 In this context, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions in ITA No.528 to 531/2014 has held as under :- “ 4.2.2 In this regard, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed

CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

68.- Whether when assessee had future obligation of maintenance services-and necessary expenditure required therefor, and assessee's ITA No.580 & 740/Bang/2022 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 29 calculation was made. on scientific basis, assessee was justified in treating 39 percent of total price as an amount for fulfillment of warranty conditions – Held, yes (para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

68.- Whether when assessee had future obligation of maintenance services-and necessary expenditure required therefor, and assessee's ITA No.580 & 740/Bang/2022 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 29 calculation was made. on scientific basis, assessee was justified in treating 39 percent of total price as an amount for fulfillment of warranty conditions – Held, yes (para

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

section 133A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961, are as follows: (i) an admission is extremely an important\npiece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it\nis open to the person who made the admission to show that it is\nincorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper\nopportunity to show

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 cannot be applied and the AO is directed to exclude the same from the addition u/s.68 of the Act after duly verifying the same.” 3.7 The ld AR for the assessee stated that in so far as the amounts advanced by the Firm to the 3 partners are concerned, the year-wise break-up along with

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 cannot be applied and the AO is directed to exclude the same from the addition u/s.68 of the Act after duly verifying the same.” 3.7 The ld AR for the assessee stated that in so far as the amounts advanced by the Firm to the 3 partners are concerned, the year-wise break-up along with

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 cannot be applied and the AO is directed to exclude the same from the addition u/s.68 of the Act after duly verifying the same.” 3.7 The ld AR for the assessee stated that in so far as the amounts advanced by the Firm to the 3 partners are concerned, the year-wise break-up along with

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

68,35,533/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR at the outset filed a list showing break up of commission paid to non residents during the year was as under: Vendor Amount in Name of Vendor INR Remarks Country Partner Commission payment for National Bank Almoayyed Computers

JOYDEEP MUKHERJEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT USA vs. DCIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

272,320. 5. As the assessee has not filed any return of income under section 139 (1) or under section 139 (4) of the Act and the return filed by the assessee Page 3 of 9 is subsequently in response to notice under section 148 of the Act penalty proceedings under section 270A

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 ITD 65 (TM)(Chd.) in which it was held that “the Tribunal did not consider as to whether the outputs were more the inputs, if the purchases from M/s. R.K.R.K. were considered as bogus. The assessee had moved a miscellaneous application, which was rejected inter-alia on the ground that no specific plea with regard to assessee did purchases

SMT. ARWA HARARWALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

272/- a) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of the creditors, by failing to appreciate that the appellant has filed the entire details of the purchases to substantiate that the creditors were genuine, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that apart from the opening balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act is not applicable since the Bank Pass Book does not constitute as the Books of the Assessee. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 2,06,72,127/- being the deposits found credited in the State Bank of Mysore amounting to Rs. 50,84,312/- and SVMCCS(Sri Vasavi Multipurpose Credit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act is not applicable since the Bank Pass Book does not constitute as the Books of the Assessee. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 2,06,72,127/- being the deposits found credited in the State Bank of Mysore amounting to Rs. 50,84,312/- and SVMCCS(Sri Vasavi Multipurpose Credit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the Act is not applicable since the Bank Pass Book does not constitute as the Books of the Assessee. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 2,06,72,127/- being the deposits found credited in the State Bank of Mysore amounting to Rs. 50,84,312/- and SVMCCS(Sri Vasavi Multipurpose Credit