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

69 only with reference to the income which is otherewise taxable in the hands of non-resident under section 5(2). Therefore, the issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and the provisions of section 68

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

68 and made additions in hands of assessee, as unexplained cash credits, to such amount, which has been found deposited by assessee in his saving bank account. To our mind in present facts of case section 69

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

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

68 of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore is not justified in upholding the addition under Section 69

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

68, 205, 1299/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A Nos. 69, 191/Bang/2014, 559, 881/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.387/Bang/2017 Page 10 of 331 9. The AO further observed that section

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

68 is not applicable the provisions of Section 11 69 would be applicable, however, the question before the Hon'ble High

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

68 is not applicable the provisions of Section 69 would be applicable, however, the question before the Hon'ble High

ARJUN SHETTY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TPS, CIRCLE - 1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

68 of the Act, the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) was erroneous because on the one hand, without there being any actual receipt of money, a mere journal entry was passed during the year in regard to entries of borrowed funds standing as unsecured loan and amount receivable from two different set of parties. On the other hand

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

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

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and sources, the credit shown in the books of accounts in the assessment year under consideration is open to the lower authorities to hold that it is the income of the assessee and there would be no burden

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." Page 10 of 11 The intention

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

69. 7. According to the ld. AR, in the present case, the assessee has discharged the burden upon him and no addition could be made in the hands of assessee. 8. Regarding amendment to section 68

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

69 of the Act is not warranted, the learned assessing officer is not justified in taxing the entire sum appearing in the balance sheet and the only the net increase in loans and advances for the year could have been taxed, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Grounds on addition made under section 68

HIPE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19

69,56,639 under section 68 of the Act. The section provides for treating any sum found credited

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. The addition could not be made.” Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 25 of 29 21.2 In view of this, we delete the above addition made by the AO. 22. Next ground of the assessee’s appeal is reproduced below: “5. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is not justified in law in upholding

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

69 (SC) the statements recorded are correct that there is no\nbooks of accounts maintained by the assessee either directly or by Shri D.S.\nNandish. the AO has made addition under section 68

S R RAJENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

68 of the Act cannot be applied, Section 69 will automatically come into play. Just because AO mentioned Section

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

69 of the Act and Rs.6.35 lakhs towards negative cash balance in the books of accounts totalling Rs.41.35 lakhs. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that once the assessee’s case falls under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, no invocation of section 68

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

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

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

69,500/-, can be treated as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and taxed under Section

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act\nwhich is only applicable in respect of share application money,\nshare capital, share premium or any such amount by\nwhatever name called and is not applicable to ordinary loans\nand in reproduction of the proviso in para 4.4, Ld. AO has\nconveniently and intendedly ignored the phrase \"share\n\nPage 6 of 29\nITA