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

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 are not applicable and further submitted that admission of agricultural income for claiming rebate is not causing any loss and it happened by unintentional mistake in filing ITR but the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted. Accordingly, agricultural income shown of Rs.81,07,685/- was treated as unexplained cash credit and added into

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

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

83,50,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

68 in the books of account and whether the same is required to be taxed u/s 1 15BBE of Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 is hereby partly set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment Order after making thorough enquiry on above issues. 11. It is further directed that

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

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

section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of survey, question and answer No.40 is as under: 40.It is seen from the table submitted by you in the above answer, that the cash deposited in to different accouni is totalling to Rs.68,45,21,295/- Also, you have stated in the above answer that you are unable

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

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 69 71 72-78 70 Kalpana A 12,00,000 12,00,000 79 80 82 83-91 81 Mr. Srinivasa Murthy SN 25,00,000 25,00,000 92 93 94 95-97 Muralidhar N/Nirmala M 13,00,000 13,00,000 98 99 100 101-102 Navin Bhai R Soni

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

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

section 131 of the Act. During the course of survey, question and answer No.40 is as under: 40.It is seen from the table submitted by you in the above answer, that the cash deposited in to different accoun is totalling to Rs.68,45,21,295/- Also, you have stated in the above answer that you are unable to explain

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the income tax act and accordingly a sum of Rs. 83,81,878/- being amount deposited is considered as unexplained money of the society. As discussed above, the two limbs of discussion, as to question of cash book and its validity and based on the issue of legal tender, are directly leading to invoke the provisions of Section.68

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

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

section 131 of the Act. During the course of survey, question and answer No.40 is as under: 40.It is seen from the table submitted by you in the above answer, that the cash deposited in to different accoun is totalling to Rs.68,45,21,295/- Also, you have stated in the above answer that you are unable to explain

SRI KORAMANGALA MUNIREDDY CHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 23(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we hold that since the rent received is nil because of vacancy, the addition made by the A. O. is not justified and hence deleted. 6. Regarding ground no. 3 in ITA No. 1274/Bang/2017, he submitted that page no. 8 of the order of CIT (A) is relevant in respect

KLENE PAKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

83,735/- and share application money aling with premium of Rs. 20 crores were unexplained cash credits within the meaning of provisions of section 68

KLENE PAKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

83,735/- and share application money aling with premium of Rs. 20 crores were unexplained cash credits within the meaning of provisions of section 68