M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

vi) Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Anand\nKumar Jain [2021] 432 ITR 384 held as under:\n“This statement certainly has the evidentiary value and relevance as contemplated\nunder the explanation to section 132(4) of the Act. However, this statement\ncannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material\ndiscovered during

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

vi) any other transaction as may be prescribed, IT(TP)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 26 and where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees. Section 92(2), as amended provided that where in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, two or more associated enterprises

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

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

VI-A. The incentive of the deduction provided under section 80JJ-AA is with an intention to encourage the Assessee to employ more and more people, provide employment and, in lieu thereof, permit the employer/assessee to deduct certain amounts from the income when the returns are filed. It is with this object, purport and intent of section 80JJ

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

VI-A. The incentive of the deduction provided under section 80JJ-AA is with an intention to encourage the Assessee to employ more and more people, provide employment and, in lieu thereof, permit the employer/assessee to deduct certain amounts from the income when the returns are filed. It is with this object, purport and intent of section 80JJ

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 | 23,01,09,276 | 1,41,85,547 | 24,42,94,823 | 2017-18 | 20,40,17,960 | 22,48,58,255 | 2,06,38,910 | 31,36,48,443 | 2018-19 | 43,78,88,596 | - | - | 79,79,183 | 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.\n1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s\n69C of the Act.\nPage 6 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\n(vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of\nunaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could\nnot be added to the income

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

56,470/-.” On identical reasoning the disallowance of depreciation was also deleted. 20. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. As already stated the issues that was remanded for fresh consideration by the Hon’ble High Court is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting

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

56,470/-.” On identical reasoning the disallowance of depreciation was also deleted. 20. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. As already stated the issues that was remanded for fresh consideration by the Hon’ble High Court is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting