BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

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

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

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

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

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

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

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

purchase bills to various entities, and there was no actual supply of goods. Further during the post search enquiry statement of Shri Urvil A Jani, one of the key persons of the Oneworld group of companies recorded on 08.02.2020, wherein he admitted that various Oneworldd group entities have made bogus purchase/bogus sales transactions with various entities controlled and managed

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

bogus purchases as claimed by the ld. AO because GST department has not at all issued any notice to the assessee for withdrawing input credit. Assessee also explained and submitted proof of screenshot of GST portal. Assessee also challenged that merely information is provided by GST department, addition Page 5 of 8 cannot be made in the hands of assessee

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed\n- Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party\ninformation gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been\nindependently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not\nprovided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross\nexamination