M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

120 TOTAL 4.2 Since IMFL is packed in bottles and sold, Appellant purchased bottles from various vendors. The year-wise break-up of purchase of bottles is tabulated below: ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 51 AY Bottle purchases

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

120 TOTAL 4.2 Since IMFL is packed in bottles and sold, Appellant purchased bottles from various vendors. The year-wise break-up of purchase of bottles is tabulated below: ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 51 AY Bottle purchases

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

120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

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

120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

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

120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

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

120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

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

bogus purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

purchaser of its flats) are being assessed, then, the petitioner's cases would have to be transferred to at various places where its customers reside. This is impossibility. Further, where transaction take place in the course of its business and a search takes place on such other persons at the place where such person is assessed, it would not necessarily

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

Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections 4 and 5 of section 12AB of the Act is reproduced below\n[(4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been q\nunder clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause

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

section\n12 AA (3) nor in section 12 AA (4) it has been provided or is\nseen to have explicitly provided to have retrospective\ncharacter or intent.\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 54 of 81\n(ii) In Global Health Research and Management Institute versus\nthe PCIT Jaipur in ITA No. 397/Jodh/2019 dated 25 January\n2023 wherein in paragraph

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

section 12AB\nof the Act. He submits that though this proposition is applicable for\nthe first 3 years of the appeal and not for AY 2022-23 .\n27. For this proposition he referred to the provisions of section 12AB(4)\nwhich is enacted w.e.f. 1.4.2022. He therefore submitted that this\nsection cannot be invoked for cancelling the registration prior

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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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

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

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision 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