M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

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

250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted that

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

250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted that

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

250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted that

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

250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income. 11. Assessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted that

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

250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s\n69C of the Act.\nPage 6 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\n(vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of\nunaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could\nnot be added to the income.\n11.\nAssessee replied to this notice on 18/3/2022 and it was submitted\nthat

GAUGE 16 KITCHEN EQUIPMENTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Gauge 16 Kitchen Equipments, Bangalore Page 2 of 8 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Registered Partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing & selling stainless steel

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2018-19. The assessee has also filed a cross objection in CO No. 20/BANG/2025 against the said appeal of the revenue in ITA No.1361/BANG/2025. 2. The revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- ITA No.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai Page

M/S. MALOO CONSTRUCTIONS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6 months.\n9.1 We are of the opinion that both the authorities below have\nalso not brought on record any adverse material to show that the\nalleged purchases were bogus. Further, on going through the audit\nobservations of CGST department, we take a note of the fact that\nthere is not even a whisper in the audit observation

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) dated 31.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 47 of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) dated 31.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 47 of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) dated 31.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 47 of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

6 of 47\nITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024\n\n6.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified\nin disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of\nRs.2,52,18,750/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n7.\nThe authorities below failed to appreciate that it is not for the\nAssessing Officer

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

purchase bills to various entities, and there was no actual supply of goods. Further during the post search enquiry statement of Shri Urvil A Jani, one of the key persons of the Oneworld group of companies recorded on 08.02.2020, wherein he admitted that various Oneworldd group entities have made bogus purchase/bogus sales transactions with various entities controlled and managed

SWAMY HOLAGUNDI,HUVINA HADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

250 of the Act, that the evidences brought on record were carefully considered and it was established that the expenditure incurred towards purchases is un explained. Whereas, the assessee in response to the notices of the LD. CIT (Appeals), has submitted all the required details, documents and records for the contemplations of the Ld. CIT(A). Swamy Holagundi Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

250 of the Act passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the issue on merits. It may be stated here that the department has not challenged the order on findings on the validity of 147 of the Act which has been raised by the assessee and held in favour by the Commissioner. ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

250 of the Act passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the issue on merits. It may be stated here that the department has not challenged the order on findings on the validity of 147 of the Act which has been raised by the assessee and held in favour by the Commissioner. ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page