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

vii) Honourable Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Arihant Universal\nRealty (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT( ITA NO. 4342/2017 dated 05.04.2022 )\nheld as under:\n6.1 We find it would be necessary to address the preliminary issue of whether the\naddition could be framed_u/s_153A_of the Act in respect of a concluded\nproceeding without the existence of any incriminating materials found

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

vii. On bogus purchases, assessee submitted a reply stating that it is not made purchases from one of the entities where the assessing officer is alleging the purchase of ₹ 7,752,500. With respect to the other entities was submitted that the assessee has purchased goods from these parties who are having sales tax number or VAT number and payments

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

vii. On bogus purchases, assessee submitted a reply stating that it is not made purchases from one of the entities where the assessing officer is alleging the purchase of ₹ 7,752,500. With respect to the other entities was submitted that the assessee has purchased goods from these parties who are having sales tax number or VAT number and payments

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

vii. On bogus purchases, assessee submitted a reply stating that it is not made purchases from one of the entities where the assessing officer is alleging the purchase of ₹ 7,752,500. With respect to the other entities was submitted that the assessee has purchased goods from these parties who are having sales tax number or VAT number and payments

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

vii. On bogus purchases, assessee submitted a reply stating that it is not made purchases from one of the entities where the assessing officer is alleging the purchase of ₹ 7,752,500. With respect to the other entities was submitted that the assessee has purchased goods from these parties who are having sales tax number or VAT number and payments

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del)\n(viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All)\n(ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del)\n5.16 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer\nare merely based on presumptions and assumptions without\nbringing corroborative material on record. It is settled

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del)\n(viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All)\n(ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del)\n5.16 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer\nare merely based on presumptions and assumptions without\nbringing corroborative material on record. It is settled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus document and should be ignored we can\ndo no better than condemn his contention, a contention\nwhich, if we may say so, is preposterous and\n'dishonourable. We will not go by any other consideration\nbut the one that the document before us is a registered\ndocument duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, and\nwhatever it says

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

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

VII of the companies act, 2013 as amended or substituted from time to time and the rules, notifications are circular issued in relation thereto. xiv. To organise, conduct, sponsor, participate, and supervise any activity to raise funds for and in furtherance of the objects of the trust. xv. to publish books, periodicals, journals, bulletins, and newsletters for propagating

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across several years. 05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second proviso to section 143(3) reference was sent by the AO as per letter dated 5.3.2024 for cancellation of registration as under:- ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 81 06. ITA Nos.2106

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

56 ITR 439 (SC), he disallowed 20% of the above expenditure of Rs. 31.19 crores. 11. Assessee contested disallowance before the ld. CIT(A) and referred to details of unit-wise list of payments made to contractor and reply to various show cause notices. Assessee also made an application of additional evidences which were admitted and thereafter those were adjudicated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

56 ITR 439 (SC), he disallowed 20% of the above expenditure of Rs. 31.19 crores. 11. Assessee contested disallowance before the ld. CIT(A) and referred to details of unit-wise list of payments made to contractor and reply to various show cause notices. Assessee also made an application of additional evidences which were admitted and thereafter those were adjudicated

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

section\n12 AA (3) nor in section 12 AA (4) it has been provided or is\nseen to have explicitly provided to have retrospective\ncharacter or intent.\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 54 of 81\n(ii) In Global Health Research and Management Institute versus\nthe PCIT Jaipur in ITA No. 397/Jodh/2019 dated 25 January\n2023 wherein in paragraph

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

section 12AB\nof the Act. He submits that though this proposition is applicable for\nthe first 3 years of the appeal and not for AY 2022-23 .\n27. For this proposition he referred to the provisions of section 12AB(4)\nwhich is enacted w.e.f. 1.4.2022. He therefore submitted that this\nsection cannot be invoked for cancelling the registration prior

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.

vii) Purchased shares directly from M/s. The Hamlet and received sale bill. The shares were in physical form as it was not in dematerialized form; The signatories enclosed copy of sale bill issued by M/s. The Hamlet Bank account statement reflecting the payment for the transaction.” 3.7. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee does not know regarding the three companies

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

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