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

5(2) cannot be taxed under the provisions of section 68 or section 69. Under section 5

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

section 68 of the IT Act,\n1961.\n8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed\ntotal disallowance of Rs 6,13,95,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, but\ninadvertently in the computation, addition for Rs 5

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed total disallowance of Rs 6,13,95,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, but inadvertently in the computation, addition for Rs 5

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nJagatkumár Satishkumar Patel (2014) 45 taxman.com 441\n(Gujarat); The Gujarat High Court in the case

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract para No.8 of the cited order which reads as under : “5

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nJagatkumárSatishkumar Patel (2014) 45 taxman.com 441\n(Gujarat); The Gujarat High Court in the case

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Section 68 means only the relevant previous\nyear. This ruling directly supports the assessee.\n(g) Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nJagatkumárSatishkumar Patel (2014) 45 taxman.com 441\n(Gujarat); The Gujarat High Court in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 25 Additionally, the assessee did not provide

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 68 can be made but in my case I have declared income -u/ s.44AD and not maintained any books of accounts (this is also said in the assessment order against which I am appealing). Hence the additions made are not correct in view of the law. 5

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

5 3.3.1 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in invoking the provisions of section 251(1) of the Act to make the addition of the sum of Rs.1.25 Crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

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

section 68 of the Act merely on the grounds that assessee was not authorised to receive SBN during the demonetisation. We are also conscious to facts that the AO proceeded to make addition without verifying the details provided by the assessee, explaining the nature and source of the credit. Therefore, we, for the sake of justice and fair play

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

5), it is apparent that the obligation to maintain the books of account and get them I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 audited is only on the assessee who opts to claim the income being less than 8% of the gross receipts.” 7.3 Now coming to the argument of the learned D.R. that the addition has been made under section 68

SMT.ASHA SURENDRA KUMAR,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

5 submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has decided the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act and not on the applicability of the provisions of Section 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

section 68 of the Act merely because the appellant had wrongly mentioned twice Page 8 of 16 an amount of Rs. 81,07,690/- in the schedule Exempt Income in the return of income filed. a) The appellant submits that he is a practicing neuro surgeon and for the AY 2018-19 earned a share of profit

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

5. The second leg of argument of the learned Authorised Representative is the provision of Section 68 cannot be applied

AMBICAA SALES CORPORATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 5, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

5) of Section 43 of the Act talks of an eligible deduction in respect of trading in derivatives. Upon the details submitted by you, it is not clear as to whether the transactions done by you are in derivatives or they are in the nature of daily transactions squired off without taking any delivery. The Assessing Officer was supposed

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)

section 68 of the Act, despite the fact that the appellant has provided corroborative evidence in support of his claim. Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore Page 2 of 25 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in disbelieving that the impugned cash deposits were proceeds from the professional receipts already offered for tax. 5

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

5. The assessee has also filed the additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal with regard to the claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in respect of foreign tax credit not eligible for relief under section 90 or 91 of the Act. 6. The ground No 1 is general