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

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)

76,300/- as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the income tax act, by passing assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld.AO made such addition as the assessee could not file requisite details as the notice was issued to the email address that was not functional. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

76,249 in view of the single addition of Rs.49.50 Crores. 5.2.1 In the appeal before us, the assessee has assailed the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act dt.10.6.2013, mainly on the following grounds :- (i) that the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction under Section

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

76,114/- towards loans advanced and investment made by the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the source of money for making investments and advances is out of the members money and loans borrowed which has been recorded as `liability' in the balance sheet of the appellant

JOHN D SILVA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

Section 68 of the Act a sum of Rs. 76,86,822/ - and being taxed under Section 115BBE

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

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

CHETANA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , DAVANEGERE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was not authorized to accept any demonetized notes of Rs.500 & 1000 from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and in spite of knowing the fact, the assessee accepted the demonetized currency, therefore both the lower authorities were justified in making addition

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

In the result the ITA No

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

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.

section 148 by filing return of income on 26/04/2019. Thereafter statutory notice for conducting assessment was issued to the assessee on 04/06/2019 and 05/07/2019 calling for various details. It is thereafter that the assessee sought for the reasons recorded as per para 6.2 of the assessment order. The Ld.AO issued the reasons recorded vide Page

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5) The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5) The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5) The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5) The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5) The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. MOHAMMED FAROOQ KANANA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

76,900/-. The statistics reported by the Verification Unit is in line with the data that comes up when sought information on the internet onthe average yield of mangoes per acre in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the data for the year 2020 is 3 tonnes per acre which is even less than the figure taken in the above calculation