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

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

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

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

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

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

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

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SUVARNA, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2021-22

340). Hence entire amount was added back. This is not correct fact recorded in the assessment order. The ledger account and bank accounts could have been called for and examined. 3. In the reply dated 19-12-2022, the appellant replied to the AO that the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act dated

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

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

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

340 74,94,566 Total 5,90,22,934 9,07,73,475 8. The statement of one of the sub-contractor Shri Avinash Choudhary was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 23.11.2016 and as per question number 17, 18, 19 and 20, he stated that he has not received any work order from

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

purchase peace and avoid any protracted litigation. Hence, while filing the return of income u/s 153A for AY 15-16 and AY 16-17, certain additional income came to be disclosed. The following is the original income declared, and the additional income declared for AY 15-16 and AY 16- 17 (returns are placed in pages

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

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

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall