DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

carried forward business loss or unabsorbed deprecation as per the books of accounts of the Appellant prepared in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in taw in confirming the provisions to the extent a sum of Rs.86.07 crores

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

carried forward and interest levied thereon be deleted.” Page 4 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a firm doing its business of real estate and infrastructure development. For the year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 declaring short term capital loss of Rs.1

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

forward delivery, cash-on-delivery/postpaid facility across serviceable pin codes, reverse logistics, and ERP integration with a specialized customer interface. Revenue was earned from providing these services to Flipkart, which is its group company, as well as from independent customers like Vector E-Commerce and Xerion Retail. 8.1 During AY 2016-17, the company was in its very first

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

forwarded to the AO for remand report. The AO in the remand report submitted that during the search proceedings at the premises of the assessee, it revealed various incriminating documents that the assessee through over billing and bogus invoicing has generated cash to meet the inadmissible expenses required in the field of contract business. The MD . ITA No.978

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

purchase billings.\n5.\nQuantification\n5.1\nBased on the evidences gathered during the search, the DDIT(Inv) has estimated\nundisclosed income for A.Y.2019-20 as under:\nDescription of\nUndisclosed Income\nΑ.Υ.\nEstimation\nDiversion of Trust\n2019-20\n17,65,44,610\nfunds\nDisallowance Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

purchase billings.\n5.\nQuantification\n5.1 Based on the evidences gathered during the search, the DDIT(Inv) has estimated\nundisclosed income for A.Y.2019-20 as under:\nDescription of\nUndisclosed Income\nΑ.Υ.\nEstimation\nDiversion of Trust\n2019-20\n17,65,44,610\nfunds\nDisallowance Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

purchase billings.\n5.\nQuantification\n5.1\nBased on the evidences gathered during the search, the DDIT(Inv) has estimated\nundisclosed income for A.Y.2019-20 as under:\nDescription of\nUndisclosed Income\nΑ.Υ.\nEstimation\nDiversion of Trust\n2019-20\n17,65,44,610\nfunds\nDisallowance Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections

DRESS CODE ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

loss a/c, bank statement, GST return, month-wise purchase and sale invoices, e-waybills, etc. 4. The ld. AO noted that assessee has shown purchase of Rs.2,01,15,217 wherein assessee has purchased shirting and suiting from one, M/s. Manjunatha Marketing on 28.9.2017 for Rs.3,04,731. However, on verification of GST portal, it was found that this entity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Loss account was ₹76.86 crores.\n\nITA No.978, 1190 & CO No.24/Bang/2024\nPage 25 of 68\nMoreover, the Department itself accepted M/s Avexa's turnover and\nprofit in its assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, which included\nthe contract receipts from the assessee, thereby acknowledging the\ntransaction as genuine.\n\n28.3 Regarding the three other parties namely M/s Haigreeve

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup

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

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

purchase and \nsubsequent loss were sham or fabricated. The transactions involved \nindependent third parties, were conducted through legal banking routes, \nand were duly documented and accounted for. Simply because the \nassessee incurred a loss does not mean the transaction was not genuine \nor that it lacked business purpose. \n\n43.6 It is also important to note that a mere statement