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 and consider the share capital of Rs.4,06,98,779/- as income of the appellant. 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 45 of 49 GROUNDS - 5

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of "Other Discounts" amounting to Rs.31,51,444/- with a finding that, the other party would have claimed expenses on the entire bill without discount and hence allegedly not allowable as expenditure. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of "Other Discounts" amounting to Rs.31,51,444/- with a finding that, the other party would have claimed expenses on the entire bill without discount and hence allegedly not allowable as expenditure. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

68 of the Act in place of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, the learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the issue, at para 3.16 of the order, held that the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores is to be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45) of the Act. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 20 10.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention, observing that the expenses mentioned above were either of a personal nature with no relation to the objectives of the trust or were in the nature of interest and penalties, which are also not related to any charitable

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45) of the Act. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 20 10.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention, observing that the expenses mentioned above were either of a personal nature with no relation to the objectives of the trust or were in the nature of interest and penalties, which are also not related to any charitable

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received." IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page

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)

45 lakhs." 5.5 The ld. A.R. also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Shree Sanand Textile Ltd. ITA No. 995/Ahm./2014, wherein it was held that the provisions of section Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore Page 8 of 25 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

45 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\nstatute as it is. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into a statute or to read down the words of a statute, which the Legislature in its wisdom has or has not deliberately incorporated.\nTherefore it is not possible to appreciate the argument of the Ld.Sr.Counsel

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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

5,85,000/- − Unexplained opening cash of debtors Rs.17,45,000/- − Unexplained opening cash balance Rs. 11,66,774/- Total Rs.1,35,03,699/- 9.2 According to the ld. A.R., the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts and he has filed only statement of income for the assessment year 2012-13 disclosing the income u/s 44AD

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

68 of the Act and applied tax rate under Section 115BBE of the Act. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings by stating as under: - “2, The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,70,48,675/- during the demonitization period in his bank accounts in five different Banks. The Assessing Officer should have obtained the cash denomination for all bank accounts

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]

5), it is apparent that the obligation to maintain the books of account and get them audited is only on the assessee who opts to claim the income being less than 8% of the gross receipts.” 10 I.T.A. No.397/Bang/2019 . 7.3 Now coming to the argument of the learned D.R. that the addition has been made under section 68

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

5,74,000/- . Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued & served to the assessee on 28.06.2021 . In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details

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

5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO. The learned

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