M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

purchase of raw materials which explained his large drawings of cash from the bank. Learned counsel then cited a host of decisions to bring home the point that no evidence or document can be relied upon unless it is shown to the assessee. Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT. Similarly, the requirement of cross-examination as the requirement of the rules

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

bogus Page 12 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore share capital/bogus share premium, which was used for routing funds through web of bank transactions. The Ld.AR submitted that, based on a borrowed satisfaction, the Ld.AO also doubted the sale of shares by assessee that another two companies by the name M/s. Swift Residency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rootstart Builders

SMT MADHU SOLANKI,MYSORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear:1998-99

bogus in nature. Accordingly, he assessed the aggregate amount of Rs.46,61,745/- as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above said addition and hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 7. The assessee has, inter alia, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared

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

164 Taxman 78) (SC). 4. CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited (2017) 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bombay). 5. CIT, Bangalore Vs. IBC Knowledge Part (P) Ltd. (2016) 69 taxmann.com 108 (Karnataka). 8. The leaned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has erred in relying on various case laws, which are not at all applicable to the Appellant's case. 9. The Appellant

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

164 Taxman 78) (SC). 4. CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited (2017) 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bombay). 5. CIT, Bangalore Vs. IBC Knowledge Part (P) Ltd. (2016) 69 taxmann.com 108 (Karnataka). 8. The leaned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has erred in relying on various case laws, which are not at all applicable to the Appellant's case. 9. The Appellant

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

164 Taxman 78) (SC). 4. CIT, Mumbai Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited (2017) 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bombay). 5. CIT, Bangalore Vs. IBC Knowledge Part (P) Ltd. (2016) 69 taxmann.com 108 (Karnataka). 8. The leaned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has erred in relying on various case laws, which are not at all applicable to the Appellant's case. 9. The Appellant

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. YELAHANKA - AP BORDER TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

purchase bills raised for work done to prove the Page 4 of 8 genuineness of the creditors mentioned in the notice. The assessee also produced confirmation from M/s Ramalingam Construction Co. (II Ltd. 2.6 The assessee also furnished details of Tax Deducted at Source and remittance details as per the details called for in the notice. The learned assessing officer

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S KBR INFRATECH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

bogus and, on the other hand, it had consciously avoided remitting the tax deducted at source in time and made the remittance only when it was visited with a survey, it had deliberately delayed the remittance of the TDS amounting to Rs.2.05 crores etc and then levied penalty at Rs.77,95,155/-, @ 5% pm on the defaulted TDS. 03. Aggrieved