LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

condone the delay.\n7.\nThe brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad\nKansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of\nmanufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL\nIspat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business\nincome of ₹ 4,120,060/-.\nPage 4 of 40\nITA

SRI. HABEEB SHAIK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus purchase and assessed the income at Rs.49,53,810, and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act dated 26th March, 2021. The A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, on 27.12.2021. Against both the orders, the appeal was instituted on 22nd April, 2023 before the FAA with a delay

HARANAHALLI LAKSHMANA SETTY NAGARAJA,RAJAJINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

bogus invoices and claimed input tax credit under the GST Act and therefore proposed to treat the said purchases as not genuine. The assessee filed all the documents to show that the purchases made by him are genuine. The AO not accepted the submissions made by the assessee and disallowed the said purchases u/s. 37 of the Act. As against

LAKSHMANRAM BHEEMAJI PUROHIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

purchase. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The appeal before us was filed late by 65 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The main reasons state that the assessee did not have any knowledge of taxation

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

bogus purchase of land was to be deleted” (iii) Overtop Marketing (P.) Ltd.[2023] 148 taxmann.com 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

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

delay, we condone the same and proceed to hear the matter on merit. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 2 to 9 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exempted capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act for Rs. 10,86,720/- only and treating the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee was issued with notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The assessment was completed after making an addition of ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee was issued with notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The assessment was completed after making an addition of ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the indexed cost of interest of ₹2,51,20,901 claimed on the borrowed money utilized for acquiring the capital asset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee. 6. The sole and substantive issue emerging out of appeal and the CO is estimation of sales of the assessee and addition u/s. 69A in the light of cash seized of Rs.1.48 crores. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is a trader

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

SHRI. ASLAM PASHA,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

delay is also nominal hence, condoned. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with levy of penalty and has raised several facets of challenge to the same. 5. As per facts available on record, the assessee is engaged in the business of silk waste business, filed his return of income on 30.11.2014 at a total income of Rs.2,07,330. This return

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

condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued

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

condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued

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

condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued