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 in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that part of the share capital represented company’s own income from undisclosed sources. The similar view has been taken by the High Courts. 17. As the Apex Court has considered the law in Lovely Exports (Supra

SYED MOHAMMED RIZWAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

Section 68 of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022, which is not applicable in assessee’s case. 8. The learned CIT(A) did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the disallowances/additions by observing as under: - “4.5 The additional evidences include a cash book, bank hook, purchase register

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

section 68 both operate in different field. Thus the contention of the assessee-company cannot be accepted. This ground of appeal is also dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 17. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal in its appeal viz. ITA No.717/Bang/2014 : ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

section 68 both operate in different field. Thus the contention of the assessee-company cannot be accepted. This ground of appeal is also dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 17. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal in its appeal viz. ITA No.717/Bang/2014 : ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. S S INDUSTRIES, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

46A and hence the department is not justified in contesting the same. 3. Without prejudice to the foregoing, section 68

MARULASIDAPPA GUNDAGATHI DYAMAVVANAHALLI,,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

46A of the IT Rules, 1962, in as much as not providing opportunity to the AO to comment on additional evidences filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings. Hence, the issue to the file of the AO and direct him to reconsider the issue in light of additional evidences filed by the assessee to justify sundry creditors for statistical purposes

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

46A of the I.T. Rules. Further whether the amount can be added u/s. 69 of the Act does require any further verification as it is part of regular books of account which was available before the AO prior to the date of search. Hence we do not find any merit in both the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

46A of the I.T. Rules. Further whether the amount can be added u/s. 69 of the Act does require any further verification as it is part of regular books of account which was available before the AO prior to the date of search. Hence we do not find any merit in both the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

46A of the I.T. Rules. Further whether the amount can be added u/s. 69 of the Act does require any further verification as it is part of regular books of account which was available before the AO prior to the date of search. Hence we do not find any merit in both the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

46A of the I.T. Rules. Further whether the amount can be added u/s. 69 of the Act does require any further verification as it is part of regular books of account which was available before the AO prior to the date of search. Hence we do not find any merit in both the grounds of appeal raised

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

46A does not apply and\nfurther the cash payment made by the assessee is from the regular\nbooks of account which does not need any further verification in\nabsence of any incriminating material.\n36. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the\norders of the ld. lower authorities. Para 15 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order\nclearly

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

46A does not apply and\nfurther the cash payment made by the assessee is from the regular\nbooks of account which does not need any further verification in\nabsen ce of any incriminating material.\n36. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the\norders of the ld. lower authorities. Para 15 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. GLOBAL TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

46A does not apply and\nfurther the cash payment made by the assessee is from the regular\nbooks of account which does not need any further verification in\nabsence of any incriminating material.\n\n36. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the\norders of the ld. lower authorities. Para 15 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHET ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

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

68 of the Act. 9. The fourth issue involved in this appeal is computation of the agricultural income of ₹ 1,491,503/– disclosed by the assessee in return of income. The assessee failed to substantiate the same income with the proper evidence like sales expenditure bills, crop grown certificates etc. and therefore the above income was considered as unexplained money

SHRI. K. PARAMESHWARAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68 and Rs.1,46,25,000 under Section 69 of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) and furnished additional evidence under Rule 46A

KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Department and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action since there was no compliance to the notice issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Department and assessee have filed the cross appeals before the Tribunal. We shall first adjudicate the Department’s appeal

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Department and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action since there was no compliance to the notice issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Department and assessee have filed the cross appeals before the Tribunal. We shall first adjudicate the Department’s appeal

M/S. K.N.R ROFFING PVT LTD.,,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, TUMKUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Membe Assessment Year : 2015-16

46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963 Page 5 of 8 [the Rules] for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(Appeals) accordingly confirmed the order of the AO. On the issue of set off of current year business loss, against income added u/s. 68, by relying on the provisions of section