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

94,77,984/- (US Dollars $ 9,39,952) by a non- resident. non-citizen. Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera in shares of the company M/s. Kansur Developers (P) Ltd. The Assessing Officer in the order of assessment dated 31 12.2015 has added the said investment under the provisions of section 68 of the Income

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

7 of 16 13. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 13.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The learned CIT(A) without considering the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, wrongly upheld the double mention of agricultural income i.e. a sum of Rs. 81,07,690/- once being the share of profit being exempt

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)

7. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of cash deposits made during the demonetization period without rejecting the books of accounts and thereby bringing the same amount to tax twice. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred by altering the applicability of tax provisions from section 68 to section

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU 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

94,500\n6,73,53,000\nTOTAL\n12,49,500 61,12,000 3,34,25,000 3,53,73,930 19,29,48,500 25,90,09,400\n15,64,02,965\n68,45,21,295\nWe have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of\nsearch under section 132(4) of the Act of question

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

94 (Calcutta) “since creditworthiness of lenders of assessee had been examined in depth by lower authorities and lenders companies had directly submitted documents before Assessing Officer, no substantial question of law arose for consideration from order of Tribunal affirming deletion of impugned additions under section 68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice

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

94,500 /- instead of net income as the Appellant has claimed expenditure being Interest expenses in the Return of Income . Hence only net income should have been added. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred in both on facts and in law in confirming in not considering the Interest on loan paid

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessce is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8 per cent of the gross

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

94,500\n6,73,53,000\nTOTAL\n12,49,500\n61,12,000\n3,34,25,000\n3,53,73,930\n19,29,48,500\n25,90,09,400\n15,64,02,965\n68,45,21,295\n\nWe have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of\nsearch under section

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

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

7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there was survey u/s 133A of the Act on 17.9.2010. During the course of survey, various discrepancies with regard to introduction of cash credit to the extent of Rs.3.2 crores, omission of real estate business to the extent of Rs.49.25 lakhs

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

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

7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there was survey u/s 133A of the Act on 17.9.2010. During the course of survey, various discrepancies with regard to introduction of cash credit to the extent of Rs.3.2 crores, omission of real estate business to the extent of Rs.49.25 lakhs

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

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

7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there was survey u/s 133A of the Act on 17.9.2010. During the course of survey, various discrepancies with regard to introduction of cash credit to the extent of Rs.3.2 crores, omission of real estate business to the extent of Rs.49.25 lakhs

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

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

94,681/- (1,32,56,556 + 53,38,125) were declared in the VAT return and accepted by the sales tax department. 5.5. The lower authorities have erred in treating the entire cash balance as on 08.11.2016 of Rs.2,11,44,291/- as advances without appreciating that the same consists of proceeds of sales concluded before demonetization

CHETANA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , DAVANEGERE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

94,580. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices issued to the assessee regarding verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee filed details. From the documents, it was noticed that assessee has deposited cash during the demonetization period. However assessee being micro finance company has accepted demonetized notes for which Gazette Notification No.2652 dated

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

68 of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains

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

68 of the Act and also to add 3% of the total LTCG claim u/s 69C of the Act (copy of the notice is reproduced in Para 6 of the assessment order). The AO in support of the allegations made in the notice provided sworn statements of certain persons. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter

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

68 of the Act and also to add 3% of the total LTCG claim u/s 69C of the Act (copy of the notice is reproduced in Para 6 of the assessment order). The AO in support of the allegations made in the notice provided sworn statements of certain persons. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter

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

68 of the Act and also to add 3% of the total LTCG claim u/s 69C of the Act (copy of the notice is reproduced in Para 6 of the assessment order). The AO in support of the allegations made in the notice provided sworn statements of certain persons. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter