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

77,984/- (US Dollars $ 9,39,952) by a non- resident. non-citizen. Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera in shares of the company M/s. Kansur Developers (P) Ltd. The Assessing Officer in the order of assessment dated 31 12.2015 has added the said investment under the provisions of section 68

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

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

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. 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

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

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

68 is not sustainable. 5.12. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that taxing the aforesaid addition under section 115BBE amounts to taxing Rs.1,56,75,000/-twice over when the said amount was already taxed under the normal provisions. 6. The lower authorities have erred in levying interests of Rs. 47,77

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.

68 of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of AO in disallowance the STCL claimed of Rs.(-)1,75,000/- is upheld. 7.16 Appellant has contended that AO did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

77,14,000/-paid to lenders. which was claimed in Return of Income filed. 7. The AO was not correct in not considering the interest on loan as allowable expenditure as the Appellant has identified the parties from whom loans has taken and also submitted their Name and PAN etc. 8. The A.O. has failed to send letters for confirmation

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

77,14,000/-paid to lenders. which was claimed in Return of Income filed. 7. The AO was not correct in not considering the interest on loan as allowable expenditure as the Appellant has identified the parties from whom loans has taken and also submitted their Name and PAN etc. 8. The A.O. has failed to send letters for confirmation

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

68 would apply and section 115BBE will automatically get invoked. Hence the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 12. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. 13. The ld. AR submitted that ground No.1 raised is general in nature and therefore no arguments were advances. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. According to ground No.2

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

68 and added into total income and applied tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly assessed income was determined at Rs.75,49,764. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the first appeal proceedings, the assessee field written submissions which has been incorporated

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

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

77,000 1,89,66,500 1,68,28,500 5,17,72,000 3,91,000 3,91,000

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act which is only applicable in respect of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called and is not applicable to ordinary loans and in reproduction of the proviso in para 4.4, Ld. AO has conveniently and intendedly ignored the phrase "share Page 6 of 29 ITA No.1035/Bang/2023

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

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

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest payments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be considered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out by her. From computation of income

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77 ITR 0674, copy available on pages 355 to 361 of paper book. He pointed out that as per this judgment, it was held in this case that since the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Act were not present in that case, the assessment order passed under Section