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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67

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. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

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. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

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. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

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

Section 68 arises in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67

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

Section 68 arises in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67

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

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

section 68 of the Act can be invoked only where any sum is found credited in the books of account 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 satisfactory in the opinion of the Income Tax Officer

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68, Rs.17,67,740/-: a. The learned assessing officer has erred in treating the increase of unsecured loan of Rs.17,67,74o/- during the year as unexplained in terms of section

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in this case as the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts. Further, the P&L account and balance sheet filed by the assessee before the assessing authority cannot be considered as a books of accounts, as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, the view of ours fortified

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 (In CIT, Poona v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Born.) but the additions of Rs.41,35,000-00 were

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