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 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

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

41,054/- (inclusive of share profit of Rs.81,07,685/- from M/s. Classic Plantation and Rs.1,33,369/- from M/s. Classic Advertising). Assessee submitted that income received from M/s. Classic Plantation has been shown twice firstly under Sl.No.4 of schedule of income as agricultural receipts and the same is included in the exempt claimed under section

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

41(1) nor section 68 of the Act can be applied. On the applicability of section 68, we are of the view

SMT.MANJUSHREE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of cash deposited in the bank account. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found from the AIR information that cash deposit aggregating to Rs.35,13,300 was made in the S.B. A/c. of the assessee which was jointly operated by her husband

ACIT vs. M/S ALVARES & THOMAS,

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

41(1) nor section 68 of the Act can be applied. On the applicability of section 68, we are of the view

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

68 of the Act and levy of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. 14.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee society during the demonetisation (9th November 2016 to 31st December 2016) made cash deposit into 4 different bank account for a sum of Rs. 41

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

41,000/- out of the total cash of Rs.42,39,560/- was not in SBNs and the same had to be excluded. The assessee also specifically stated that he was in the process of obtaining the break-up details from other ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 6 of 21 banks and hence, these figures will have

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

41,000/- out of the total cash of Rs.42,39,560/- was not in SBNs and the same had to be excluded. The assessee also specifically stated that he was in the process of obtaining the break-up details from other ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 6 of 21 banks and hence, these figures will have

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--Share application money--Assessee had sold certain shares to M/s. Y, during the financial year ending on 31-3-1999. A sum of Its. 49, 41

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 149 of the Act, the AO is competent to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on or before 31.3.2019 and in the case of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 30.3.2019 and it has been issued in time. In view of our above findings, additional ground Nos.1

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

41. The powers under section 147 of the Act are special powers and peculiar in nature where a quasi-judicial order previously passed after full hearing and which has otherwise become final is subject to reopening on certain grounds. Ordinarily, a judicial or quasi-judicial order is subject to appeal, revision or even review if statute so permits

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

section 41(1) were attracted in respect of amount of unsecured loan written off. There was no allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of amount in question for the previous years, when creditor waived repayment of the said amount, it amounted to capital receipt not liable to tax. 5. The CIT(A) was of the opinion

SHRI. M.S. AMARNATH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

41(1) nor section 68 of the Act can be applied. On the applicability of section 68, we are of the view

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

sections 68 and 69/69A/69C." It has been held that if there is no books of account maintained, no addition can be made u/s. 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

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

Section 44AD of the Act since the turnover is more than Rs.1 Crore. As such, in our humble opinion, the ratio laid down by the judgement relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Shri Girish V Yalakkishettar Vs. ITO (supra) and Sarka Jain Vs. CIT (supra) cannot be applied. Further there

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