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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

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

bogus purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

purchased from various parties by the assessee as listed in page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The assessee in total has acquired 60% of the total shares issued and subscribed. In view of the acquisition of 100% of the issued and subscribed share capital of the above company, took over reserves and surplus of the above company

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

JOHN DISTILLERIES 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

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,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

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS,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

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

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

bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of the assessing officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and the consequential assessment was to be annulled. k. Reliance is also placed on the parity of reasoning laid down in the following decisions – (a) ACIT

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

2) issued and\nassessment pending u/s 143(3)\nPending regular assessment\nproceedings would abate and would\nconverge/merge in proceedings u/s\n153A.\nAccordingly the scope of\nassessment under section 153A\nwould cover the pending return\n6. Assessment u/s 143(3)\ncompleted.\nSince regular assessment\nproceedings have been completed &\nare not pending, there would be no\nabatement of proceedings.\nAO loses jurisdiction

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

2) issued and\nassessment pending u/s 143(3)\nPending regular assessment\nproceedings would abate and would\nconverge/merge in proceedings u/s\n153A.\nAccordingly the scope of\nassessment under section 153A\nwould cover the pending return\nPage 22 of 147\nfiled as well and would not be\nrestricted to incriminating material\nfound during the course of search.\n6. Assessment

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus. The complete detail of such discount qua party and qua the invoices are made available to the lower authorities. Even the statement of the partner of the assessee firm during the course of search states that ‘other discount’ is required to be substantiated. In the absence of such substantiation, he agreed for disallowance. However, when later on during

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus. The complete detail of such discount qua party and qua the invoices are made available to the lower authorities. Even the statement of the partner of the assessee firm during the course of search states that ‘other discount’ is required to be substantiated. In the absence of such substantiation, he agreed for disallowance. However, when later on during

M/S ROYAL RALF HOTELS P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.962/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Royal Ralf Hotels Pvt. Ltd., No.28/28, Geet Prakash, 21St Main, 14Th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-560 070 …. Appellant. Pan Aaccr 8037K Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 8.1.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.3.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. :

purchase certain lands in and around Bangalore and in this regard approached the assessee. Consequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) dt.24.12.2005 was entered into between the assessee and ‘Shipra’ . The assessee identified certain lands near Devanahalli, Bangalore and is consequence thereof, a piece of land measuring about 5.6 acres was acquired by the assessee from M/s. Queen City Developers