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

68\nof the Act will not apply. In view of this, we delete the addition.\n17.\nThe second issue on merits of the case relates to estimated ad-hoc\ndisallowance of expenses by disallowing expenses to the tune of\nRs.24,06,60,000 being 20% of Advertisement and Business Promotion\nExpenses of Rs.120.33 crores.\n18.\nThe AO had disallowed

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 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

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

section\n132(4) of the Act. We have also gone through the statement recorded under\nsection 131 of the Act. During the course of survey, question and answer No.40\nis as under:\n40.It is seen from the table submitted by you in the above answer, that the cash\ndeposited in to different accoun is totalling to Rs.68

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 of the Act. 2.10 The assessee thereafter, made application under section 154 of the Act vide application dated 24/01/2018. It was submitted that, without prejudice to the disallowance made by the Ld.AO, business loss has to be set off against the income brought to tax under the head income from other sources. The assessee submitted that, separate appeal

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

section\n132(4) of the Act. We have also gone through the statement recorded under\nsection 131 of the Act. During the course of survey, question and answer No.40\nis as under:\n\n40.It is seen from the table submitted by you in the above answer, that the cash\ndeposited in to different accoun is totalling to Rs.68

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

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

68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said addition was made despite the fact that the appellant had placed on record cogent evidence in the form of affidavits from the contractors and other supporting documents, which were neither disputed nor disproved by the Department. 2. Facts and Evidences Placed on Record The appellant

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 would not attract to the cash deposited during the demonetisation period which is at page 187-198 of the paper book. 12. The ld. AR further submitted that the cash deposits in SBNs were made by the trade debtors in the bank accounts of the assessee. It was not accepted by the assessee directly. As per Notification

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 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 17. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

68 rws 115BBE(2) of the Act. 7. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- for the AY 2018-19. 8. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in adopting value of Rs.50,00,000/overlooking Rule 115 rwr 26 of the IT Rules. 9. Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have allowed

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act is justified and the same be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee has shown capital account balance as on 1.4.2012 at Rs.41,22,092/-. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has explained only to the tune of Rs.10,79

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act is justified and the same be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee has shown capital account balance as on 1.4.2012 at Rs.41,22,092/-. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has explained only to the tune of Rs.10,79

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act is justified and the same be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee has shown capital account balance as on 1.4.2012 at Rs.41,22,092/-. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has explained only to the tune of Rs.10,79

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act is justified and the same be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee has shown capital account balance as on 1.4.2012 at Rs.41,22,092/-. According to the ld. AO, the assessee has explained only to the tune of Rs.10,79