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

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 - Cash credits: "Where any sum is 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 or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to 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

section 68 of the Act, it is not just an entry of cash credit in the books of accounts that would create liability of explanation from the appellant, but there should be an actual flow of funds. Only once the flow of funds are established, then, the question of explanation from the appellant actually arises. e) The appellant places

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

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

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest\npayments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be\nconsidered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted\nTDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature\nof business carried out by her. From computation of income

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

96,76,114/- towards loans advanced and investment made by the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the source of money for making investments and advances is out of the members money and loans borrowed which has been recorded as `liability' in the balance sheet of the appellant

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

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest\npayments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be\nconsidered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted\nTDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature\nof business carried out by her. From computation of income

MR. GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR,DAHRWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was bad in law and was liable to be struck down. 3. The ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,96,470/- as unexplained cash deposits made by the Appellant in his Bank Account without appreciating the facts of the Appellant’s case. 4. The ld.CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact

MR.GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was bad in law and was liable to be struck down. 3. The ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,96,470/- as unexplained cash deposits made by the Appellant in his Bank Account without appreciating the facts of the Appellant’s case. 4. The ld.CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

section 68 rws 115BBE(2) of the Act. 7. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- for the AY 2018-19. 8. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in adopting value of Rs.50,00,000/overlooking Rule 115 rwr 26 of the IT Rules. 9. Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have

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 issue relating to the treatment of the Page 2 of 11 said amount as unexplained cash credit, they are taken up together for the purpose of adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

In the result the ITA No

68,28,500\n5,17,72,000\n3,91,000\n3,91,000\n51,09,000\n1,25,30,000\n1,07,31,500\n2,12,60,000\n2,07,56,000\n7,03,86,500\n62,50,000\n41,96

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

M/S INDIAON TIME EXPRESS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Indiaon Time Express Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A1, Samhita Ritz, Commissioner Of Nagavarapalya, Income Tax, Cv Raman Nagar, Circle – 3 [1][1], Bangalore – 560 093. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacci6196C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Revenue By Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/10/2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Taw, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Authorities Below Have Not Justified In Making An Addition Of Rs.41,04,847/- On An Estimate Basis At 5% Of The Total Expenditure Claimed Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

96,945/-, which works out to Rs.41,04,847/-. On the other hand the appellant has contended that 5% of Rs. 7,86,31,911/- only should be considered. Since a part of the expenditure debited to the P&L account has already been added back by the appellant in its computation of income, so this argument of the appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas