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

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

section 68 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the addition has been made on account of deposit of SBN notes to following bank accounts during the demonetization as below: Name of the bank Cash deposit in Other Non Total Cash and Account

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

section 68 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the addition has been made on account of deposit of SBN notes to following bank accounts during the demonetization as below: Name of the bank Cash deposit in Other Non Total Cash and Account

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

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

68,28,500\n5,17,72,000\n3,91,000\n3,91,000\n51,09,000 1,25,30,000 1,07,31,500 2,12,60,000\n2,07,56,000\n7,03,86,500\n62,50,000 41,96,000 1,93,62,000 3,08,36,000\n1,81.14,500\n7,87.58.500\n1,49,42

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

68,28,500\n5,17,72,000\n3,91,000\n3,91,000\n51,09,000\n1,25,30,000\n1,07,31,500\n2,12,60,000\n2,07,56,000\n7,03,86,500\n62,50,000\n41,96,000\n1,93,62,000\n3,08,36,000\n1,81.14,500\n7,87.58.500\n1,49,42

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 27,12,500/- during demonetization out of which Rs. 13,69,500/- were received in SBNs. Out of this

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

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

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, 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

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of Rs. 391,89,304/- and partly confirmed by CIT (A) to the extent of Rs. 1.5 Crores received from Shri kalro as per Para 25 of the impugned order of CIT (A), Rs. 2 Crores received from M/s Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited as per Para 44 of the impugned order of CIT (A) and Rs. 25 Lacs received

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

42,000/- for the impugned Assessment Year, the source of which remains unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

68 of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of AO in disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Further as survey u/s. 133A was conducted on 27.9.2016, the disclosure made therein of Rs.1,14,20,100 admitted as undisclosed income under the head income from other sources and assessee has paid only the normal taxes. According to the AO, this amount should have

DINESH PAPOO MELWANI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

42,255 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The assessment was completed by making this

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. vii. The product of the assessee caters mainly to farmers in and around Shimogga and hence most of the sales are done through cash and it is the reason for assessee could not file the details of persons to whom sales is made. viii. The sales of the assessee increases post rainy season i.e., September

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 would not attract to the cash deposited during the demonetisation period which is at page 187-198 of the paper book. 12. The ld. AR further submitted that the cash deposits in SBNs were made by the trade debtors in the bank accounts of the assessee. It was not accepted by the assessee directly. As per Notification

JOHN D SILVA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 17. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed