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

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

391–392 of the paper book. On perusal, we note that the average price of maize purchased through cash and bank transactions is broadly similar. For instance, the average cost of cash purchases per quintal exceeded that of bank purchases only by ₹40, ₹30, and ₹27 in A.Y. 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18 respectively, while

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

391–392 of the paper book. On perusal, we note that the average price of maize purchased through cash and bank transactions is broadly similar. For instance, the average cost of cash purchases per quintal exceeded that of bank purchases only by ₹40, ₹30, and ₹27 in A.Y. 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18 respectively, while

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

391–392 of the paper book. On\nperusal, we note that the average price of maize purchased through\ncash and bank transactions is broadly similar. For instance, the average\ncost of cash purchases per quintal exceeded that of bank purchases only\nby ₹40, 30, and 27 in A.Y. 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18\nrespectively, while

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

391–392 of the paper book. On\nperusal, we note that the average price of maize purchased through\ncash and bank transactions is broadly similar. For instance, the average\ncost of cash purchases per quintal exceeded that of bank purchases only\nby ₹40, 30, and 27 in A.Y. 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18\nrespectively, while

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

bogus share capital/share premium without verifying the nature of the transactions. iii. The proceedings u/s 147 are initiated without studying and ascertaining the value of shares of M/s. Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., a reputed company with a turnover of over Rs. 100 crores and profit before tax of Rs. 16 crores. The share valuation certificate of Kemwell Biopharma

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & 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

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

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