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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

vii)). The assessee purchased 2,80,000 shares KIPI. at Rs. 2.8 Crore on 19.03.2009. Going by this, the value of the Company KIPL was 14 Crore for the purpose of purchase of shares as the total number of shares issued by KIPL is 14,00,000. However, after a gap of 6 months i.e. on 26.03.2010 the net worth

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

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

purchased from various parties by the assessee as listed in page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The assessee in total has acquired 60% of the total shares issued and subscribed. In view of the acquisition of 100% of the issued and subscribed share capital of the above company, took over reserves and surplus of the above company

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

DELL INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

vii) translation services; (viii) payroll; (ix) remote maintenance; (x) revenue accounting; (xi) support centres; (xii) website services; (xiii) data search integration and analysis; (xiv) remote education excluding education content development; or (xv) clinical database management services excluding clinical trials, but does not include any research and development services whether or not in the nature of contract research and development services