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

bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act for AY 2018–19. 16. Consequently, the assessment order was passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

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

bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act for AY 2018–19. 16. Consequently, the assessment order was passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

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

bogus, he has not brought any reliable evidence in support of such allegation. 30. These documents were prepared by the assessee at the time when the goods were received at the factory premises of the assessee. These are documents supporting the trail of transaction and also establishes internal control and process which supports the case of the assessee. These documents

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

bogus, he has not brought any reliable evidence in support of such allegation. 30. These documents were prepared by the assessee at the time when the goods were received at the factory premises of the assessee. These are documents supporting the trail of transaction and also establishes internal control and process which supports the case of the assessee. These documents

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

144 read with section 153D\nof the act under the impugned order on the ground that: -\nA) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the\nburden of proving that there is a valid initiation of\nproceedings under section 153C to assume valid the\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C\nof the act.\nPage 24 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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 132 of the Act was carried out in the group case of M/s. City Gold Fashion Jewllery and others on 26/06/2019. A warrant u/s. 132 of the Act was also executed at the business premises of M/s. Raj Diamond at Mumbai 26/06/2019. Subsequently, the case was centralized with the ITA No.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SUVARNA, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2021-22

144). The creditors were agriculturist. The debtors were also almost 98% (Rs.36,54,18,151out of total sales of Rs.37,31 ,79,760). 13.2 Confirmation of two creditors: The appellant claimed that the majority of the creditors were repaid in the subsequent year as and when the sales are realised. It is analysed as under; 13.2.1 Veera Raghava Traders: (Prop

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

bogus payments toward subcontracting expenses and other expenditures. The appellant-assessee also agreed to offer additional income of ₹1 crore for the assessment year under consideration (A.Y. 2018-19) and 3 crore for the subsequent assessment year (A.Y. 2019-20). 4.2 Accordingly, the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act were initiated through a notice issued

SRI C ANIL RAHASHEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144 dated 8/3/2013. Accordingly, on 21/3/2013. the assessee filed replies but the assessee could not substantiate evidences and documents in support of the claim. 3.2 Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment, which is as under :- ITA No.1733 - 1735/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 25 “During the course of search proceedings documents and loose sheets marked as A/TBS/01 to A/TBS/02 were seized from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

bogus payments toward subcontracting expenses and other expenditures. The appellant-assessee also agreed to offer additional income of ₹1 crore for the assessment year under consideration (A.Y. 2018-19) and ₹3 crore for the subsequent assessment year (A.Y. 2019-20). 4.2 Accordingly, the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act were initiated through a notice issued

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. USK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DP, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2019-20

Section 144 of the Act nor provide any finding to support his claim. Therefore, without going into the technicality and following the decisions of Shri LakshmananVs ITO (supra) and considering the fact that the appellant is into construction business and also the AO has not given any reasons for adopting l0% net profit rate, I am of the considered view