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

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), 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

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

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

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 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchase of goods and services from FY 2007-08 onwards. This is the basis for the addition made by the AO. The statement of Shri V. Janardhan who has admitted that there were bogus purchases, his statement was confronted to the Director of the assessee company viz. Suresh Gowda. The statement of Suresh Gowda was also recorded by searched team

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchase of goods and services from FY 2007-08 onwards. This is the basis for the addition made by the AO. The statement of Shri V. Janardhan who has admitted that there were bogus purchases, his statement was confronted to the Director of the assessee company viz. Suresh Gowda. The statement of Suresh Gowda was also recorded by searched team