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

50. In Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The important words in section 147(a) are “has reason to belief” and these words are strong than the words “is satisfied”. The belief entertained by the Income-tax Officer must not be arbitrary

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

50. In Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The important words in section 147(a) are “has reason to belief” and these words are strong than the words “is satisfied”. The belief entertained by the Income-tax Officer must not be arbitrary

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

50,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 of the Act is not applicable and consequently invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act is invalid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

50,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 of the Act is not applicable and consequently invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act is invalid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

2 To bring the Ferro Cement Products; 47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KALABURAGI vs. M/S. SAHAKARI SAKKARE KHARKHANE NIYAMITH, ALAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarthe Acit, Circle 1, Appellant Kalaburagi. Vs

section 1941 of the IT Act. 5. In the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering Rs. 15 crore as advance lease rent which was received in one go instead of Rs. 45.0471 crore without going into the fact whether Rs.15 crore received by the assessee is 'Income from Business

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

68,43,155/-. This also supports our contention that\nthe assessments records were not verified by the Learned JCIT.\nh) The Learned JCIT gave an approval under Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

68,500\nTumkur Grain Merchant co-op\nBank Ltd\n32,72,084\n2,87,500\nBharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd\n9,23,847\n2,15,220\nSubramanyeshwara co-op Bank\nLtd\n2,50,000\nBharat Co-op Bank Ltd\n7,12,500\nGrain Merchant Co-op Bank Ltd\n5,62,500\n1,03,463\nKarnataka State Co-operative Apex

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed