M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

12A(a) of the Act. (b) The surplus generated, if it is held for charitable purpose and applied for charitable purpose by the assessee then, the Assessee has to be considered as existing for a charitable purpose. There are enough safeguards provided in Sec.12 and 13 of the Act to ensure that personal benefits of the persons in control

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

purchase of land in their individual capacity and advances to related entities. There was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of cash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across several years. 05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second proviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

purchase of land in their individual capacity and advances to related entities. There was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of cash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across several years. 05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second proviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3). 2. Pr. CIT Vs. GEE Square Exports (100 Taxmann.com 462) (SC) ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across several years. 05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second proviso to section 143(3) reference was sent by the AO as per letter dated 5.3.2024 for cancellation of registration as under:- ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 81 06. ITA Nos.2106

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

12A of the Act has been passed by the Ld Principal CIT on the basis of findings noticed by the search officials and also by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is the contention of the Ld. A.R. that all the findings and additions have since been deleted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it was submitted that

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

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. 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. 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 IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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. 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

purchases is a bogus one intended to concocted to explain the cash deposits 11 ITA Nos.2397-2399/Bang/2018 Sri C Gangadhara Murthy. in the Savings bank account. In any case, the unaccounted cash introductions are much more than the gross incomes declared for the year and offered to tax. 6. It is also noted here that the return for the asst.year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

purchases is a bogus one intended to concocted to explain the cash deposits 11 ITA Nos.2397-2399/Bang/2018 Sri C Gangadhara Murthy. in the Savings bank account. In any case, the unaccounted cash introductions are much more than the gross incomes declared for the year and offered to tax. 6. It is also noted here that the return for the asst.year