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

57% of the total cash sales made during the year. Further, the assessee claimed that during November 2016, total cash sales amounted to ₹7.23 crores, out of which: • ₹12,74,930/- was made between November 1 and November 7, 2016, • ₹6,72,68,168/- was made on a single day, November 8, 2016, and • The remaining cash sales

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 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

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

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

57 TTJ 159 (Bang) a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Bangalore held that mentioning the wrong section is not fatal to the assessment. In that case also, the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the addition was made under Section 68

MR. M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri M.J. Aravind, Nirvana, 329, 18Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Ideal Homes Layout, Phase I, Vs. Ward – 2 (3) (1), Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 098. Pan: Acbpa0889J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

68,750/-. He submitted that the investment in foreign funds or foreign equity is yielding taxable income and therefore, deduction should be allowed u/s. 57(3) against this taxable income under the head income from other sources. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted that the issue in the present case is squarely

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 54F and that the identity of the deposit in the CGDA Scheme becomes that of the Net Consideration received on transfer of the capital asset without appreciating that there are no statutory provisions in the Act to arrive at such a deeming fiction and therefore, the said view taken is opposed to law and facts of the appellant

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

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

SHANTILAL JAIN(HUF),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

57,143 as unexplained cash credit and\ntaxed the same under section 68 of the Act.\n8. The learned

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 57 of Rs.13,76,320/- as a deduction from the total income is fully justifiable. 2.1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also not appreciated the fact that certain class of assets may not earn income in a certain year viz., investment in unlisted equities and foreign investments and that this fact will not hamper the allowability

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 does not apply to such transaction. According to him, no such sum as credited in the books of account, but Page 13 of 22 in fact debited for payment of taxes. Even otherwise, he submits that the provisions of section 115BBE could not have been invoked. He also submits that assessee has explained the sources of payment

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

57. In the facts of this case the company cannot claim any relief either under s. 70 or s. 71, since its business had not started and there could not be any computation" of business' income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting year. In such a situation the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68 in the hands of the\nassessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the\npartner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the\nassessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission\ncontained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If\nAO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued\nsummons