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

section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, he made an addition of ₹ 43,815,000 as bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act for AY 2018–19. 16. Consequently

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

section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, he made an addition of ₹ 43,815,000 as bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act for AY 2018–19. 16. Consequently

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

bogus purchases are required\nto be added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of\nthe Act. Accordingly

SWAMY HOLAGUNDI,HUVINA HADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

bogus, it is obvious that the purchases which led to sales/closing stock have been done out of books and the same amounts to unexplained expenditure and accordingly the entire purchases from M/s Sri Sai baba Rice industries wastreated as unexplained expenditure and disallowed under section 69C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

purchase consideration of school EPS and remaining amount of Rs. 41,85,16,746/- was transferred or credited to corpus/capital found account. 6. In addition to the above, the assessee trust has received inter- trust funds of Rs. 20,22,96,029/- throughout the year from the schools . Page 3 of 24 run by M/s CET for construction its school

EXCELLENT POWER CONTROLS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus purchases, not the full amount. 7. It was also submitted by the assessee that there is no dispute regarding the source of payment for the impugned purchases. Therefore, such payments cannot be classified as unexplained expenditure under the provisions of Section 69C

EXCELLENT POWER CONTROLS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1(, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus purchases, not the full amount. 7. It was also submitted by the assessee that there is no dispute regarding the source of payment for the impugned purchases. Therefore, such payments cannot be classified as unexplained expenditure under the provisions of Section 69C

EXCELLENT POWER CONTROLS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus purchases, not the full amount. 7. It was also submitted by the assessee that there is no dispute regarding the source of payment for the impugned purchases. Therefore, such payments cannot be classified as unexplained expenditure under the provisions of Section 69C

HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1) & TPS, SHIMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

69C of the Act. 3.1 Similarly. the AO further noted that the assessee has shown high amount of liabilities in the balance sheet whereas it has shown low- . ITA No.247 & 1066/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 8 income /receipt in the income tax return and therefore the AO added sundry creditors of ₹8.62 crores, treating them as unexplained liabilities. On appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAXMANA, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

69C of the Act. 3.1 Similarly. the AO further noted that the assessee has shown high amount of liabilities in the balance sheet whereas it has shown low- . ITA No.247 & 1066/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 8 income /receipt in the income tax return and therefore the AO added sundry creditors of ₹8.62 crores, treating them as unexplained liabilities. On appeal

DRESS CODE ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.18,69,992 and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming such addition. 3. The learned AO and the learned CIT(A) have erred in concluding that purchases made by the Appellant from M/s. Manjunatha Marketing aggregating to Rs.18,69,992 are bogus

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

bogus shareholders through\nbanking channels that as disputed. There were no countering\nevidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in\nthat case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the\naforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to\nsection 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

bogus shareholders through\nbanking channels that as disputed. There were no countering\nevidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in\nthat case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the\naforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to\nsection 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

GANGOTHRI VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Purchase of immovable property Rs.7,26,32,800/- Rs.8,44,24,940/- Gross alleged escapement of Income. 3.2 He submitted that the Assessee in response to the show cause notice has filed the submissions on 14.12.2022, 21.12.2022, 24.12.2022, 21.01.2023 and 13.02.2023. However, the NFAC has not appreciated the submissions and documents furnished and ultimately it was held that the Assessee

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings

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

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