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

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

3), Bengaluru issued notice under section 153C of the Act on 17/6/2021 in the name of assessee. 9. As the notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the legal hair of the assessee objected to the same. The objections were disposed of on 12 February 2022 holding that the notice addressed to the deceased person was valid

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

3), Bengaluru issued notice under section 153C of the Act on 17/6/2021 in the name of assessee. 9. As the notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the legal hair of the assessee objected to the same. The objections were disposed of on 12 February 2022 holding that the notice addressed to the deceased person was valid

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

3), Bengaluru issued notice under section 153C of the Act on 17/6/2021 in the name of assessee. 9. As the notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the legal hair of the assessee objected to the same. The objections were disposed of on 12 February 2022 holding that the notice addressed to the deceased person was valid

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

3), Bengaluru issued notice under section 153C of the Act on 17/6/2021 in the name of assessee. 9. As the notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the legal hair of the assessee objected to the same. The objections were disposed of on 12 February 2022 holding that the notice addressed to the deceased person was valid

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

3), Bengaluru issued\nnotice under section 153C of the Act on 17/6/2021 in the name of\nassessee.\n9.\nAs the notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the\nlegal hair of the assessee objected to the same. The objections were\ndisposed of on 12 February 2022 holding that the notice addressed\nto the deceased person was valid

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

purchase of those lands and therefore there is a clear-cut violation of the provisions of ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 61 of 81 section 13 of the act. She extensively referred the orders of the learned principal Commissioner of income tax. Clarification sought during hearing 40. Subsequently we have put the case for the clarification before the parties

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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

M/S. MALOO CONSTRUCTIONS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": ["143(2)", "142(1)", "250", "132", "143(3)"], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of purchases as bogus, based on third