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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Purchases is made devoid of any incriminating material.\nThis is also held by us while deciding appeal of the Ld AO for AY\n2018-19. Therefore, the addition by the Id. AO on account of Bogus\nPurchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself.\n60.\nAccordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang

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

bogus contractors bills. These cash that is\ngenerated are routed back to Bangalore through our cars. This we will use it for multiple\npurposes such as personal expenses, capital, payouts etc. The entire handling of cash is done\nby me and my assistant Shri. Mathew Joseph.\nPage 47 of 147\n20.8 However, it is noted by the ld. AO that

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

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

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

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

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

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

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt\nthat it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating\nexpenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the\nassessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should\nnot be invoked in the assessee's case

SHRI. ASLAM PASHA,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

bogus purchase and sales. That proprietary concern has shown gross loss of Rs.71,45,300. The ld. AO rejected the books of account by applying the provisions of section 145 and disallowed the loss of Rs.71,45,300. Thus, total income of assessee was assessed at Rs.74,62,555. Page 4 of 7 6. Penalty proceedings were initiated

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHET ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

purchase bill, could not have resulted into an addition of Rs.1,32,38,548/–. 14. The ld. AR in support of his contention he further relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. ACIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 339 wherein it is stated that where assessee jeweller claimed that substantial amount of cash deposited