M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.03.2013 was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish substantiating evidence of the persons from whom the undersigned purchase is claimed to have been made by producing the following documents. 1. Full and true disclosure of the parties along with their PANs from whom the unregistered iron ore is claimed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.03.2013 was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish substantiating evidence of the persons from whom the undersigned purchase is claimed to have been made by producing the following documents. 1. Full and true disclosure of the parties along with their PANs from whom the unregistered iron ore is claimed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt\nthat it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating\nexpenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the\nassessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should\nnot be invoked in the assessee's case

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

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

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

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the local enquiry conducted by the AO through his inspector revealed that no such concerns were in existence in the address provided by the assessee. With all these incriminating materials, Sri Janardhan.V, Internal Auditor and Finance Manager of the assessee company were confronted and his statements was recorded as under:- ITA Nos.131

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the local enquiry conducted by the AO through his inspector revealed that no such concerns were in existence in the address provided by the assessee. With all these incriminating materials, Sri Janardhan.V, Internal Auditor and Finance Manager of the assessee company were confronted and his statements was recorded as under:- ITA Nos.131

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the local enquiry conducted by the AO through his inspector revealed that no such concerns were in existence in the address provided by the assessee. With all these incriminating materials, Sri Janardhan.V, Internal Auditor and Finance Manager of the assessee company were confronted and his statements was recorded as under:- ITA Nos.131

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

section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the local enquiry conducted by the AO through his inspector revealed that no such concerns were in existence in the address provided by the assessee. With all these incriminating materials, Sri Janardhan.V, Internal Auditor and Finance Manager of the assessee company were confronted and his statements was recorded as under:- ITA Nos.131

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

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

1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted

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

1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted

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

1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted

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

1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted

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