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

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), 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 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

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

bogus payments toward subcontracting\nexpenses and other expenditures. The appellant-assessee also agreed to\noffer additional income of ₹1 crore for the assessment year under\nconsideration (A.Y. 2018-19) and 3 crore for the subsequent\n assessment year (A.Y. 2019-20).\n4.2\nAccordingly, the assessment proceedings under section 153C of\nthe Income Tax Act were initiated through a notice issued

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

144\nof the Income Tax Act 1961 making an addition of Rs\n92,00,000/- under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961;\n1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\nhas unjustly rejected the appellant's claim that the alleged\nsale was only a transaction of gift between relatives and\nthe initial mistake of executing a sale

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed\n- Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party\ninformation gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been\nindependently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not\nprovided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross\nexamination

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

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings