INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

195 of the Act on account of reimbursement of ESOP costs to the parent company. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming

PRAKASH PRAVEEN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and it was served through e- filing account of the assessee on 28/09/2019, as well as an Prakash Praveen Kumar, Bangalore Page 3 of 7 intimation issue of notice was served through SMS alert on the registered mobile number to the assessee on 28/09/2019 and the assessee

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

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

195. The seized material A/DUU/11 is placed at pages 1555 to 1635 of PB. According to the ld. DR, it shows unaccounted utilisation of capitation fees for the benefit of trustees. These are unsigned documents and not supported by any corroborative material. Further the beneficiaries are not examined or cross-examined. At this point, it is appropriate to rely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

195. The seized material A/DUU/11 is placed at pages 1555 to 1635 of PB. According to the ld. DR, it shows unaccounted utilisation of capitation fees for the benefit of trustees. These are unsigned documents and not supported by any corroborative material. Further the beneficiaries are not examined or cross-examined. At this point, it is appropriate to rely

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

195. The seized material A/DUU/11 is placed at pages 1555 to 1635 of PB. According to the ld. DR, it shows unaccounted utilisation of capitation fees for the benefit of trustees. These are unsigned documents and not supported by any corroborative material. Further the beneficiaries are not examined or cross- examined. At this point, it is appropriate to rely

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

purchased, further invest in the shares of other company and so on. It can be seen as a sheer coincidence that many companies brought into existence, having link ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 22 with each other and none of them doing any worthwhile business activity come together to issue shares at such a huge premium. This when considered

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

purchase of site which the assessee had admitted to have paid during the course of search? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A) is perverse in holding that the addition towards undisclosed investment in land was without any evidence, ignoring the seized document written in assessee's own hand writing towards payment

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

195, 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560011. Consequent to search action, a notice under Section 153A was issued to a t on 24.10.2016. In response, the appellant company submitted its Corporation Private Limited A.M. 2015-16 return of income on 12.12.2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 23,94,26,383/-. Subsequently, on 10.1 1.2017, the company' revised

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

SMT.LEELA BAI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10

195/- which is very less than the total sale proceeds treated as income. [Wherein cost of shares purchased is not considered] c. Has not considered the fact that the appellant has earned LTCG on sale of shares. d. Without any basis, held the transaction in shares as fraudulent. e. Holding that the provisions of section 68 of the Act applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

195(Mad), Smt. Sumathi Dayal 80 taxman 89 (SC), and others are not relevant to the appellant’s case because those decisions relate to situations involving tax avoidance schemes, colorable devices, or related party transactions. Here, the transactions involved independent third parties (Sri V.G. Siddhartha and Lehman Brothers), and thus the cited legal principles do not apply. ITA No.1442

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

195(Mad), Smt. Sumathi Dayal 80 taxman 89 (SC), and others are not relevant to the appellant’s case because those decisions relate to situations involving tax avoidance schemes, colorable devices, or related party transactions. Here, the transactions involved independent third parties (Sri V.G. Siddhartha and Lehman Brothers), and thus the cited legal principles do not apply. ITA No.1442

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

195(Mad), Smt. Sumathi Dayal 80 taxman 89 (SC), and others are not relevant to the appellant’s case because those decisions relate to situations involving tax avoidance schemes, colorable devices, or related party transactions. Here, the transactions involved independent third parties (Sri V.G. Siddhartha and Lehman Brothers), and thus the cited legal principles do not apply. ITA No.1442