SMT. TEENA BETHALA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD- 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

69A of the Act. Probably, an addition under section 68 of the Act could have been considered; but then

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

69A of the Act is unsustainable in law. The addition is made on unsubstantiated entries in some loose sheets and does not represent any money found and hence does not come under the purview of Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit

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

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery

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)

68 to section 69A of the Act regarding the impugned cash deposits. This is in contravention of the powers

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

69A or 69C prima facie these sections are not applicable in the case of assessee for the following reasons. Section Explanation for non applicability of Section Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 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

69A or 69C prima facie these sections are not applicable in the case of assessee for the following reasons. Section Explanation for non applicability of Section Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 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

69A or 69C prima facie these sections are not applicable in the case of assessee for the following reasons. Section Explanation for non applicability of Section Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68

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

69A of the Act., however the AO made addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has satisfied the requirement of 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

Section 68 or 69A of the Act. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied on the judgement of Allahabad High

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that assessee is very small entrepreneur, and requested to give finality to the issue by directing AO to compute income under presumptive taxation as per section 44AE. He submitted that for the detailed reasons submitted above, provisions of sec 69A

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

sections 68, 69, or 69A of the Act could not be invoked. 16. The ld. AR emphasized that even

RAMZAN MULLA,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

69A would not stand. Page 5 of 13  By remanding the case, the ITAT reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for a meticulous examination of evidence by the Assessing Officer.  The Tribunal's order ensures that genuine business receipts are not inappropriately subjected to penal provisions, thereby upholding both the integrity of the tax assessment process

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B,\n69C or 69D of the Act.\nxxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking

KARNATAKA GINGER TRADING COMPANY ,KUSHALNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, MEDIKERI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

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

section 69A can be invoked only when the money found with the assessee is not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding its source. The relevant portion is reproduced below for sake of reference: “17. Further reliance in this regard is being placed on the Judgment of ITAT Visakhapatnam

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

69A of the Act. Probably, an addition under section 68 of the Act could have considered: but then (hat is not the case

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

69A could not have been invoked. It was further stated that the assessment order also did not make any reference to specific section whether provisions of section 115BBE is applicable. He also stated that the provisions of section 68

CHANNAPATNA SIDDAPPAJI SANDEEP GOWDA,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAMANAGARA

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

68,89,243 Profit Rs. 7,02,869/- Rs. 3,14,083/- 4. However, the AO observed that the assessee has filed returns for the year under consideration as well as for earlier years only after the search. During the search, in the statement recorded on 03.12.2016 under section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee clearly stated that