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

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 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

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 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

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 149 of the Act, the AO is competent to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on or before 31.3.2019 and in the case of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 30.3.2019 and it has been issued in time. In view of our above findings, additional ground Nos.1

S R RAJENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

85,060/-. Original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), after making an addition of Rs.1,08,000/-. Proceedings u/s.263 of the Act were ITA.1092/Bang/2014 Page - 2 initiated by the CIT for a reason that assessee’s bank account with Karur Vysya Bank was not reflected in the books of account. Pursuant

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

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

section 68 when the sales declared and offered as income have been accepted, when the genuineness of books of account was not doubted, when books of account upon which basis income was offered to tax were not rejected and when turnover relating to the said cash receipts of Rs.1,85

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

85,63,174/-. The details of the expenditure incurred by the assessee is as under: 6. Assessee has calculated agricultural income as under: 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted copies of affidavits endorsing payments received by him from various buyers Page 7 of 15 of the mangoes for the Financial Year 2019-20 totalling to Rs.82

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

PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 12. The next issue for our consideration is the addition made under section 69C of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.33,985/- as deduction towards housing loan interest. The AO called for details

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

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

85,58,035/-u/s 68 of the Act. 18.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 19.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

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

85,58,035/-u/s 68 of the Act. 18.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 19.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

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

85,58,035/-u/s 68 of the Act. 18.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 19.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

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

85,58,035/-u/s 68 of the Act. 18.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 19.That the authorities below erred in treating the capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

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

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

MAHENDRA KUMAR ,BALLARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act and Rs.10,85,157/- upon estimation of income under section 44AD of the at 8% of the sales