SHRI. VIJAY MAHANTESH TRADING COMPANY,NAVALGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 33,90,000/- only. Since all the grounds revolve around the same

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

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier years and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be deleted. 4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of 24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here in the present case

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act is not warranted, the learned assessing officer is not justified in taxing the entire sum appearing in the balance sheet and the only the net increase in deposits for the year could have been taxed, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

90,000/- has flown from the FY 2006-2007 and this being an opening balance, and the credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessee which does not pertain to the year under consideration, cannot be a subject matter of addition under section 68

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

90,000/- has flown from the FY 2006-2007 and this being an opening balance, and the credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessee which does not pertain to the year under consideration, cannot be a subject matter of addition under section 68

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

90,000/- has flown from the FY 2006-2007 and this being an opening balance, and the credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessee which does not pertain to the year under consideration, cannot be a subject matter of addition under section 68

SHRI. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

90 of the Act on the ground that the Form 67 was not filed. However, on becoming aware of the fact that the Form 67 has to be filed, the assessee filed the form-67 on 01/08/2020 vide e-filing acknowledgement number 437052681010820. 3.4 The assessee also filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO praying

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

Section 68 of the Act. Conclusion and Prayer 7. In light of the foregoing submissions and in view of the binding ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehta Parikh & Co., it is respectfully submitted that the addition of 1,20,16,90

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of Rs. 391,89,304/- and partly confirmed by CIT (A) to the extent of Rs. 1.5 Crores received from Shri kalro as per Para 25 of the impugned order of CIT (A), Rs. 2 Crores received from M/s Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited as per Para 44 of the impugned order of CIT (A) and Rs. 25 Lacs received

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

In the result the ITA No

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained ITA Nos.1617 and 1618/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 45 for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here in the present case

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here in the present case

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE 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

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here in the present case

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording Page 10 of 11 the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

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

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording Page 10 of 11 the reasons for reopening that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts. Here

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 16 explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 is any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no ITA Nos.1568 to 1570 & 1573 to 1575/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 16 explanation about the nature and source thereof. The assessing officer is very much sure while recording the reasons for reopening that the assessee