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

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

64 wherein ratio of Hon’ble . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 15 of 32 Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra) was distinguished by holding the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) was not properly interpreted. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

M P SWARNAMAHAL ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M. P. Swarnamahal, Vs. Acit, 26 H J S Chambers, Richmond Road, Circle – 7(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aagfm 2876 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

64,400/- being income from business. Assessee has 2 branch outlets at Jayanagar and Richmond road. Case was selected for scrutiny on the following reasons vide notice dated 24.09.2018 which are as under:- (1) large value of cash deposited during the demonetization period. (2) There is abnormal increase in csh deposits during demonetization period as compared to average rate

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

section 68 of the Act, as the assessee failed to grow satisfactorily the genuineness of the credit and the creditworthiness of L.K.Trust to advance the amount. 2.9 The Ld.AO thus assessed the loss of ₹ 24,64

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

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

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 the Act may kindly be deleted in the interest of equity and justice. Addition of Rs.8,15,390/- under Section 56(2) of the Act. [GROUND NO. 2] The Appellant had obtained two independent valuation reports in determining the share premium. The valuation is conducted at separate time and date. The learned assessing officer has added

M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

section 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the authorities below erred in ignoring the relevant details and relying on surmises, suppositions and conjectures in support of the addition. The authorities below erred in making the addition even after giving a finding that the said funds belong to the directors and not to the company. Thus they failed

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

68 of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of AO in disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

64,02,965 68,45,21,295 29. We have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of search under section

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of *24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

section 64(1)(iv) of the Act are applicable of the facts of the case and the income is not chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee. According to him it is chargeable to tax in the hands of husband of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied Page 6 of 11 upon the decision