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

purchase of bottles or grapes and hence, are bogus receipts. The Ld. AO has not conducted any investigation to substantiate his claim. 4.25 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that in every search and seizure action, statements u/s 132(4) of the Act are recorded multiples times, till the search is concluded'. -The persons giving such statements

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

purchase of bottles or grapes and hence, are bogus receipts. The Ld. AO has not conducted any investigation to substantiate his claim. 4.25 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that in every search and seizure action, statements u/s 132(4) of the Act are recorded multiples times, till the search is concluded'. -The persons giving such statements

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchases as bogus. In view of the above detailed discussion, facts and judicial pronouncements, we hold that addition made solely based on statement without having corroborative materials cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchases as bogus. In view of the above detailed discussion, facts and judicial pronouncements, we hold that addition made solely based on statement without having corroborative materials cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchases as bogus. In view of the above detailed discussion, facts and judicial pronouncements, we hold that addition made solely based on statement without having corroborative materials cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO . ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 33 to delete the addition made by him. Hence

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchases as bogus. In view of the above detailed discussion, facts and judicial pronouncements, we hold that addition made solely based on statement without having corroborative materials cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO . ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 33 to delete the addition made by him. Hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

275/- after making additions of Rs.1,99,81,344/- towards alleged bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed petition for admission of additional ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

275/- after making additions of Rs.1,99,81,344/- towards alleged bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed petition for admission of additional ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

275/- after making additions of Rs.1,99,81,344/- towards alleged bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed petition for admission of additional ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

purchase of raw materials which explained his large drawings of cash from the bank. Learned counsel then cited a host of decisions to bring home the point that no evidence or document can be relied upon unless it is shown to the assessee. Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT. Similarly, the requirement of cross-examination as the requirement of the rules

M/S. KHADEER AHMED KHAN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

275/- (26586 X 785 / 305) Net Sale Consideration 1,72,09,849/- Less: Pro-rata Basis Deduction in respect of Investment in New Asset claimed u/s. 54F 1,28,18,724/- (1,72,09,849 X 1,33,28,404 / 1,78,94,124/-) Capital Gains on Sale of Old Asset

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 147." 2. A copy of the reasons recorded had already been given to you on 06.03.2014. It is seen that you had not objected to the reasons recorded till now. Only after the passing of asst.order for asst.year 2008-09 dt.20.08.2014 you have now objected to thereas.ons recorded. Similar reasons had been recorded for asst.year 2008-09 also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 147." 2. A copy of the reasons recorded had already been given to you on 06.03.2014. It is seen that you had not objected to the reasons recorded till now. Only after the passing of asst.order for asst.year 2008-09 dt.20.08.2014 you have now objected to thereas.ons recorded. Similar reasons had been recorded for asst.year 2008-09 also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 147." 2. A copy of the reasons recorded had already been given to you on 06.03.2014. It is seen that you had not objected to the reasons recorded till now. Only after the passing of asst.order for asst.year 2008-09 dt.20.08.2014 you have now objected to thereas.ons recorded. Similar reasons had been recorded for asst.year 2008-09 also

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

275 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under: -"A bare reading of Section 132(4) of the Act indicates that an authorized officer is entitled to examine a person on oath during the course of search and any statement made during such examination by the such person (the person being examined on oath) would have evidentiary value under Section