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

unexplained “cash credits”, not capital\nrestructuring or conversion entries. Numerous judicial\nprecedents affirm that no addition under section 68 can be made\nwhere:\na. the credit does not represent money

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 Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68: Cash Credit money from his account in Barclays Bank, Mauritius

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 Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68: Cash Credit money from his account in Barclays Bank, Mauritius

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 Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68: Cash Credit money from his account in Barclays Bank, Mauritius

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

unexplained credits were added as Income by the assessing officer by invoking the section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed total disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 9. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 10. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, due to the announcement of the demonetization of high-value currency notes

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

unexplained “cash credits”, not capital\nrestructuring or conversion entries. Numerous judicial\nprecedents affirm that no addition under section 68 can be made\nwhere:\na. the credit does not represent money

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

unexplained “cash credits”, not capital\nrestructuring or conversion entries. Numerous judicial\nprecedents affirm that no addition under Section 68 can be made\nwhere:\na. the credit does not represent money

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

money as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and added• the same in the income of the Assessee. The AO also

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 cannot be invoked. The appellant submits that without there being any actual receipt of money, a mere double mention in the schedule Exempt Income could not be construed to be an unexplained

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

money was received, the initial burden cast upon it under section 68 of the Act stood discharged. It was submitted that merely because the deposits were made in demonetised currency notes could not, by itself, justify treating the same as unexplained

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

unexplained money for being taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act having regard to the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 4.2 He further

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

unexplained money for being taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act having regard to the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 4.2 He further

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

money by the appellant as the cheque was not encashed and remained unpresented, reflected in the bank reconciliation statements of both the parties and reversed in a subsequent financial year. 2.5 Genuineness of Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was clearly established considering the fact that appellant’s substantial purchase (Rs.11.13 Crores) and Sale (Rs.4.42 Crores) with it were found acceptable

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)

money found to have been received by the assessee, is of assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness, then ld. AO must conduct enquiry and call for more details before invoking section 68 of the Act. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence