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 r.w.s. 153D

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 r.w.s. 153D

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 r.w.s. 153D

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 r.w.s. 153D

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

bogus purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

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

153D has been granted\nin a mechanical manner and without application of mind and\nthus it is invalid and bad in law and consequently vitiated the\nassessment order for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the\nAct.\nIn view of the above discussion, we hold that the order passed u/s\n153A r.w.s.43(3) has to be quashed, thus ordered

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

153D of the Act an approval has been sought for passing the order of assessment and having applied their mind and considering the facts the order of assessment has been passed. Hence on the very same issue no action can be taken under Section 263 of the Act as the actions of the Assessing Officer is pursuant to applying

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

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

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

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

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

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

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

153D of the Act dated 20/12/2019 is subject matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], thus as per the Explanation [c] to sub-section [1] of section 263 of the Act the powers are restricted to exercise the jurisdiction to the matter which was a subject matter of appeal, on the facts and circumstances

NAVUNDA ABDULLA BADRUDDIN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

153D of the Act dated 19/12/2019 is subject matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], thus as per the Explanation [c] to sub-section [1] of section263 of the Act the powers are restricted to exercise the jurisdiction to the matter which was a subject matter of appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

153D of the Act presupposes the application of mind by the Joint Commissioner which is not discernible from the order of assessment on the facts of the case. 12. The appellant denies himself liable to be levied interest under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

153D, dated 31.12.2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17\nITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nITA No.844/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Plathotathil John\nITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023\nM/s. John Developers, Bangalore\n, ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023\nM/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nPage 19 of 147\nand u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153D

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

153D of the Act is without application of mind and in mechanical manner is incorrect. The approval has been granted strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that the appeal filed by the assessee may be rejected in the interest of justice and equity.” Assessee's Appeal in ITA No.1106/Bang/2015

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

153D, dated 31.12.2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17\nPage 19 of 147\nand u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153D 2017-18 dated 31.12.2018, are as\nunder:\n10.4 The additions made by the AO in the assessment order for the\nrelevant AYs on various issues on which the Assessee has filed\nappeals, are as under:\nAgainst this assessee