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

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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

250/- and c) depreciation at Rs. 22,92,940/- on the basis of bogus bills / invoices have been rejected on facts of the case after having due regard to the merits of the issues involved. And hence I do not consider it necessary to quash the entire assessment order even when there are certain glaring instances of denial of natural

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