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

68 merely on the ground that assessee fails to prove the genuineness and source of such cash credit. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the provisions ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 28 of 49 of section

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

28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of "Income from other sources", hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, we may analyze section 80P of the Act. This section comes in Chapter

M P SWARNAMAHAL ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

28 and deeming provisions of section 68 would apply – in the absence of any overriding provision in section

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

68,068/- after disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/-\nclaimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of\nimprovement.\n2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the\nfollowing were noticed:\n• That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under\ncapital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of\nproperty situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

28(iv) of Income tax Act. The assessee made its submissions wherein it contested that the said amount of Rs. 2,55,35,871 is a capital receipt and hence cannot be considered as income. However the AO made Page 3 of 16 the addition of Rs. 2,55,35,871 for the returned loss and completed the assessment

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

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest\npayments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be\nconsidered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted\nTDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature\nof business carried out by her. From computation of income

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 68. The addition could not be made.” Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 25 of 29 21.2 In view of this, we delete the above addition made by the AO. 22. Next ground of the assessee’s appeal is reproduced below: “5. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is not justified in law in upholding

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

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once

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

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest\npayments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be\nconsidered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted\nTDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature\nof business carried out by her. From computation of income

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

28,61,058/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 142 (1) of the Act, was issued to the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. 2.2 The Ld.AO observed that, the assessee is in the business of manufacturing Indian made foreign

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 in the hands of the\nrecipient were unjustified. Furthermore, assessee has also\npaid interest to the lenders. It has also deducted tax at\nsource. Loan have been duly repaid, some part has been\nrepaid even in the present assessment year. In these\ncircumstances, in our considered opinion assessee has\ndischarged the onus. The assessing officer

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

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

68 of the Act is not warranted, the learned assessing officer is not justified in taxing the entire sum appearing in the balance sheet and the only the net increase in deposits for the year could have been taxed, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A

INTERGARDEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Intergarden (India) Private Limited, The Deputy No. 447, Sri Sai Heights, Commissioner Of 17Th Cross, 17Th Main, Vs. Income Tax, 4Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Circle 11 (3), Bangalore, Bangalore. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaaci7692H Appellant Respondent

28(i) read with section 37 of the Act. Hence, Appeal. 7. That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has erred both on the law as well as facts in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, rectify

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once

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

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

Section 68 of the Act without properly appreciating the evidences filed by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,28