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

142 2008-09 -- 15,41,29,110 2009-10 42,14,810 3,42,92,609 2010-11 4,22,50,000 -- 2011-12 2,17,78,75 -- It is material to note that all these purchases are genuine and payments have all been made by account payee cheques as and when due. Neither Mr.Manjunath nor Mrs. Sushilamma

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

142 2008-09 -- 15,41,29,110 2009-10 42,14,810 3,42,92,609 2010-11 4,22,50,000 -- 2011-12 2,17,78,75 -- It is material to note that all these purchases are genuine and payments have all been made by account payee cheques as and when due. Neither Mr.Manjunath nor Mrs. Sushilamma

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

142 2008-09 -- 15,41,29,110 2009-10 42,14,810 3,42,92,609 2010-11 4,22,50,000 -- 2011-12 2,17,78,75 -- It is material to note that all these purchases are genuine and payments have all been made by account payee cheques as and when due. Neither Mr.Manjunath nor Mrs. Sushilamma

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

142 2008-09 -- 15,41,29,110 2009-10 42,14,810 3,42,92,609 2010-11 4,22,50,000 -- 2011-12 2,17,78,75 -- It is material to note that all these purchases are genuine and payments have all been made by account payee cheques as and when due. Neither Mr.Manjunath nor Mrs. Sushilamma

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

section 142 of the Act was issued on 3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly. 10. In the notice, ld AO asked that (i) during search at the residence of the assessee certain paper sheets and images in mobile were found and seized which revealed that certain cash transactions were done which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

section 142 of the Act was issued on 3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly. 10. In the notice, ld AO asked that (i) during search at the residence of the assessee certain paper sheets and images in mobile were found and seized which revealed that certain cash transactions were done which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

section 142 of the Act was issued on 3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly. 10. In the notice, ld AO asked that (i) during search at the residence of the assessee certain paper sheets and images in mobile were found and seized which revealed that certain cash transactions were done which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

section 142 of the Act was issued on 3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly. 10. In the notice, ld AO asked that (i) during search at the residence of the assessee certain paper sheets and images in mobile were found and seized which revealed that certain cash transactions were done which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

section 142 of the Act was issued on\n3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly.\n10.\nIn the notice, Id AO asked that\n(i)\nduring search at the residence of the assessee certain paper\nsheets and images in mobile were found and seized which\nrevealed that certain cash transactions were done which were\nnot recorded in the books

GAUGE 16 KITCHEN EQUIPMENTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

142(1) of the Act was issued calling for various details along with the questionnaire. The assessee firm submitted its reply through e-filing portal. 3.1 Background of the case is that information was received through Regional Economic Intelligence Committee Gauge 16 Kitchen Equipments, Bangalore Page 3 of 8 (REIC) forum from one of the member agency of REIC

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,MANGALORE, MANGALORE vs. RAJ DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section Date of Notice 1 148A(b) 10/03/2022 2 148A(d) 23/03/2022 3 148 23/03/2022 4 129 01/07/2022 5 143(2)* No valid Return filed by the assessee 6 142(1) 17/11/2022 7 Show Cause Notice 18/03/2023 The claim of the AO is that the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 142 of IT Act. In fact, the AO is stating that show cause notice dated 13.01.2017 was issued by him to assessee and as per this notice, the assessee was asked to produce any evidence / documents which can nullify the facts mentioned in show cause notice. But assessee failed to produce any evidence / documents which will contradict the findings

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 142 of IT Act. In fact, the AO is stating that show cause notice dated 13.01.2017 was issued by him to assessee and as per this notice, the assessee was asked to produce any evidence / documents which can nullify the facts mentioned in show cause notice. But assessee failed to produce any evidence / documents which will contradict the findings

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 142 of IT Act. In fact, the AO is stating that show cause notice dated 13.01.2017 was issued by him to assessee and as per this notice, the assessee was asked to produce any evidence / documents which can nullify the facts mentioned in show cause notice. But assessee failed to produce any evidence / documents which will contradict the findings

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 142 of IT Act. In fact, the AO is stating that show cause notice dated 13.01.2017 was issued by him to assessee and as per this notice, the assessee was asked to produce any evidence / documents which can nullify the facts mentioned in show cause notice. But assessee failed to produce any evidence / documents which will contradict the findings

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs.29,39,002, contract charges of Rs.2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding that the assessee

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs. 29,39,002, contract charges of Rs. 2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding that

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs. 29,39,002, contract charges of Rs. 2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding that