TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss screen has, therefore, been misapplied. On FAR, Srinar is a contract-style electronics manufacturer (PCBs/electronic assemblies), with revenues from sale of goods and no evidence of IP-heavy services. The financials are audited and allow a reliable OP/OC. We therefore direct inclusion; any residual comparability issues can be addressed through standard working- capital/capacity adjustments. Hence, we direct

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessee to delete the disallowances made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Coming to ITA No. 544/Bang/2025, assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 14. The only effective issue raised

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set of 4 paper books running into various pages and submitted that the disallowance upheld by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary and lacks independent reasoning, as it merely reiterates the assessment order without addressing the detailed submissions made by the appellant. The learned CIT(A) concluded that cash withdrawals were booked as bogus labour expenses without specifying how such

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

bogus billings/invoicing, including\nunaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across the years.\nDIVERSION OF CHARITABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR PURCHASE\nOF PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF TRUSTEES\n3.1.1 On perusal of seized documents and other evidence and\nstatements recorded, it is seen that Mr. P. Shyamaraju and Mr. Umesh\nS. Raju (Trustees of M/s. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust) had\npurchased properties using

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

bogus billings/invoicing, including\nunaccounted and unexplained cash transactions across the years.\n3.1 DIVERSION OF CHARITABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR PURCHASE\nOF PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF TRUSTEES\n3.1.1 On perusal of seized documents and other evidence and\nstatements recorded, it is seen that Mr. P. Shyamaraju and Mr. Umesh\nS. Raju (Trustees of M/s. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust) had\npurchased properties

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

Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections 4 and 5 of section 12AB of the Act is reproduced below\n[(4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been q\nunder clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

set aside the finding\nof the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessee to delete the disallowances\nmade by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby\nallowed.\n13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nComing to ITA No. 544/Bang/2025, assessee's appeal for A.Y.\n2017-18\n14. The only effective issue raised

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

set aside the finding\nof the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessee to delete the disallowances\nmade by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby\nallowed.\n13.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nComing to ITA No. 544/Bang/2025, assessee's appeal for A.Y.\n2017-18\n14.\nThe only effective issue raised

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

set aside the finding\nof the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessee to delete the disallowances\nmade by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby\nallowed.\n13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\nComing to ITA No. 544/Bang/2025, assessee's appeal for A.Y.\n2017-18\n14. The only effective issue

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

set aside the finding\nof the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessee to delete the disallowances\nmade by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby\nallowed.\n\n13.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\nComing to ITA No. 544/Bang/2025, assessee's appeal for A.Y.\n2017-18\n\n14.\nThe only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

set of 4 paper books running into various pages and\nsubmitted that the disallowance upheld by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary\nand lacks independent reasoning, as it merely reiterates the assessment\norder without addressing the detailed submissions made by the\nappellant. The learned CIT(A) concluded that cash withdrawals were\nbooked as bogus labour expenses without specifying how such

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss of Rs. 59,40,45,851 as per law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 44. The next issue raised by the assessee through ground Nos. 10 to 15 pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Act for Rs. 4,59,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash