ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

set aside to the file of the\nassessing officer.”\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17\n"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs. 8,31,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the\nIT Act, 1961\n2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

set aside to the file of the assessing officer.” A.Y. 2016-17 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,31,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred

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

loss on sale of assets/bad debts were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. The penalty orders were set aside as they were based on additions that were deleted or set aside.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "68

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier\nyears and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be\ndeleted.\n4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of\n24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses, without

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier\nyears and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be\ndeleted.\n4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of\n24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses, without

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

set off against the rental expenditure by assessee; • recomputed the deduction under section 10A of the Act thereby reducing the deduction to Rs.46,80,755/- as against Rs.6,58,74,683/- claimed by assessee. 18. Upon receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. 19. In regards to the transfer pricing adjustment, the DRP directed exclusion

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 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

set of facts that, the appellant had not filed the return at all, whereas the appellant in fact had already filed the return of income within the due date and under the circumstances, the reopening was bad in law and deserved to be annulled. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that

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

set of facts that, the appellant had not filed the return at all, whereas the appellant in fact had already filed the return of income within the due date and under the circumstances, the reopening was bad in law and deserved to be annulled. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that

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

set of facts that, the appellant had not filed the return at all, whereas the appellant in fact had already filed the return of income within the due date and under the circumstances, the reopening was bad in law and deserved to be annulled. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law that

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only. 4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and intimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the CPC, sett of the short-term capital loss of Rs. 16,28,980/- (taxable

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of\nRs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only.\n4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and\nintimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the\nCPC, sett of the short-term capital loss of Rs. 16,28,980/- (taxable

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

loss and it happened by unintentional mistake in filing ITR but the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted. Accordingly, agricultural income shown of Rs.81,07,685/- was treated as unexplained cash credit and added into the income of the assessee and applied section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 14A disallowance and interest on ECB loan from out of the total corporate expenses of Rs.157.15 crores and accordingly arrived at the figure of Rs.83.62 crores (referred above). The A.O. proposed to allocate the above said expenditure in the ratio of turnover of various divisions and units. 11.3 The assessee objected to the proposal put forth

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 14A disallowance and interest on ECB loan from out of the total corporate expenses of Rs.157.15 crores and accordingly arrived at the figure of Rs.83.62 crores (referred above). The A.O. proposed to allocate the above said expenditure in the ratio of turnover of various divisions and units. 11.3 The assessee objected to the proposal put forth

INDO NISSIN FOODS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 115JB.” 10. It was submitted that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss against the book profit in earlier years were as follows:- Particulars Total Brought Unabsorbed Depreciation Forward Loss Business Loss Rs. Rs. Rs. 2005-06 (AY:2006-07) 48,34,69,216 15,48,05,581 63,82,74,797 Less: Adjusted during the year - 2,68

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

loss account. The ld. AO has not doubted the cash sales effected by the assessee by collecting SBN notes. Once the ld. AO accepted the figure of sales in the P&L account, which has gone into the computation of income of the assessee, that sales cannot be doubted by ld. AO to hold that it is unexplained credit

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

loss account. The ld. AO has not doubted the cash sales effected by the assessee by collecting SBN notes. Once the ld. AO accepted the figure of sales in the P&L account, which has gone into the computation of income of the assessee, that sales cannot be doubted by ld. AO to hold that it is unexplained credit