Search: section 68

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 65/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 68/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 66/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 67/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 63/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 89/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. M. A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 62/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 88/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

MR. M.N. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 64/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 34

66, 67, 68,88 & 89/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 54 d) The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, has failed to appreciate that, the assessment of the assessment year 2015-2016 do not abate under Section

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

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

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

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

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

ITA 1436/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

66. This decision of Hon’ble Andhra High Court was passed after considering the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and before the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra). The relevant extract stands as under: 11. Does section

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

Section 68 - Cash credits: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

section 149 of the Act, the AO is competent to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on or before 31.3.2019 and in the case of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 30.3.2019 and it has been issued in time. In view of our above findings, additional ground Nos.1

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

ITA 405/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

section 68 of the Act and it also furnished the details of receipt and repayment of the advance amount and had established identity of the third party in relation to the said amount. j. Reliance is placed on the following. (i) Bharatbhai Manubhai Baldha[2023] 150 taxmann.com 66

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

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

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

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. b. Disallowance on Ad-hoc and estimated basis by disallowing 20% of Advertisement and Business Promotion Expenses to the tune of Rs.24,06,60,000. c. Disallowance of expenses incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme of Rs.4,00,000. d. Addition of loss incurred on sale of assets and provision of doubtful debts

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

ITA 705/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala D.D, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

66,632/- earned by the appellant is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities, marketing of agricultural produce, supplying agricultural implements, articles and is eligible for deduction under section 8oP of the Act. 5. Grounds on addition made under section 69, Rs.13,96,76,114/-: a. The authorities below are not justified in making addition of Rs.13

SMT. ARUNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144CSection 44ASection 68

68 and directed that income should be computed under Section 44AD of the Act. Further, he submitted that as the Tribunal is very well aware that, presumptive taxation is brought into Income Tax Act to facilitate ease of doing business to the small entrepreneurs and not to burden them with drudgery of maintaining books of accounts and getting