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

86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act and levy of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. 14.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee society during the demonetisation (9th November 2016 to 31st December 2016) made cash deposit into 4 different bank account for a sum of Rs. 41,58,000/-. Out of which

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)

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and sources, the credit shown in the books of accounts in the assessment year under consideration is open to the lower authorities to hold that it is the income of the assessee and there would be no burden

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

M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee for in the previous year, the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if that explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source there of is, in opinion

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

86,38,101/-u/s 68 of the IT Act. 17. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

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

86,38,101/-u/s 68 of the IT Act. 17. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

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

86,38,101/-u/s 68 of the IT Act. 17. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

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

86,38,101/-u/s 68 of the IT Act. 17. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

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

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

section 68. vii. The product of the assessee caters mainly to farmers in and around Shimogga and hence most of the sales are done through cash and it is the reason for assessee could not file the details of persons to whom sales is made. viii. The sales of the assessee increases post rainy season i.e., September

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

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

86,720/- only and treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts

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. GREENS FARM TECH PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

86-acre landholding. In contrast, the assessee claimed an exorbitantly high income of Rs. 2.23 lakhs per acre in just two months, which was nearly six times the amount earned by Ms. G.C. Ramya from similar land. This extreme discrepancy further suggested that the assessee’s claim was not genuine. 8.4 Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision

M/S MARIGOLD LOGISTICS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 and made the investment in shares capital of assessee by following 4 persons to be unexplained credit in the books of assessee: 1 PG Thyagarajan - Rs.22,00,000/- 2 Susheela Thyagarajan - Rs. 5,50,000/- 3 Rajeshwari Swaminathan - Rs.22,86

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

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is clearly not based on any incriminating material seized from the assessee. 3.4.3 In this context, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions in ITA No.528 to 531/2014 has held as under :- “ 4.2.2 In this regard, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case