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

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

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

87 Taxman 306, “the Delhi High Court held that in view of the proviso to section 147 notice for reassessment under section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new section 147 and where the original assessment had been made under section 143(3), then in view of the proviso to section

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

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

87 to 97 of the PB), • books of account for that year, and • the bank statements of the assessee for AY 2021-22(See pages 3 to 8 of the PB), • all of which clearly establish that no amount was received during the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre- condition for invoking section 68

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

87 ITR 349 (SC)  Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar v. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR (Pat.)  CIT v. Pragathi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj.)  CIT v. Diamond Products Ltd. (2009) 177 Taxman 331 (Delhi). The appellant submits that the Supreme Court while interpreting the phraseology of Section 68

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

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

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

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

87 to 97 of the PB), • books of account for that year, and • the bank statements of the assessee for AY 2021-22(See pages 3 to 8 of the PB), • all of which clearly establish that no amount was received during the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre- condition for invoking section 68

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

87 to 97 of the PB), • books of account for that year, and • the bank statements of the assessee for AY 2021-22(See pages 3 to 8 of the PB), • all of which clearly establish that no amount was received during the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre- condition for invoking section 68

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. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that the explanation offered by the assessee and evidence submitted by the assessee in respect of each of the creditors separately was satisfactory to the opinion of the AO and thus, addition u/s 68

LEELARAM CHOUDHARY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act:- (i) Any sum must be found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year (ii) The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactorily. Then the sum so credited

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

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

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

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

87,993 and the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 19.7.2010 in the case of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singhi, M/s. Bharat Mines and Minerals, M/s. BMM Ispat Ltd., which were connected parties of the assessee. In the course of search it was found