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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs.29,39,002, contract charges of Rs.2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding that the assessee

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

249 (Guj) wherein it has been held that 'nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee in any form. ...There are certain doubtful features, but the evidence is not adequate to conclude that the purchases made by the assessee from these parties were bogus

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

249 (Guj) wherein it has been held that 'nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee in any form. ...There are certain doubtful features, but the evidence is not adequate to conclude that the purchases made by the assessee from these parties were bogus

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

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

ACIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S. JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

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 CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

249 (Mum) (SB) 9. As regards the other reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of the assessee, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that for claiming the deduction as a business expenditure it need not be necessary there is yield of income from the project. The assessee was not developed

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

2 of the assessment order the extract from the appraisal report prepared by the DDIT (Investigation) wherein it is recorded that information relating to the Assessee was found in the spreadsheet (excel sheet) that was stored in the hard disk of Sri Ali Khan. c) It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in initiating the proceedings

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

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment