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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

trust funds to trustees for purchase of lands in their individual cap /advances to related entities, (ii) bogus expenditure to generate cash (iii) generation of cash through bogus billings/invoicing, including unaccounted unexplained cash transactions across the years. 2. DIVERSION OF CHARITABLE

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

purchase of property, however, the said loan was never transferred to the trust and therefore this transaction was for the personal benefit of the trustee, hence it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. The ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

charitable Trust was established in 2003 and registration was granted u/s. 12AA of the Act on 19.3.2003 and subsequently u/s. 12AB on 24.9.2021. The original name of the trust was Bheemaneni Educational System Trust. The main objects of the trust of educational activities are as under:- “(a) To promote establish and conduct activities in the fields of education, literacy, science

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Purchases is made devoid of any incriminating material.\nThis is also held by us while deciding appeal of the Ld AO for AY\n2018-19. Therefore, the addition by the Id. AO on account of Bogus\nPurchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself.\n60.\nAccordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang

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.

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 of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant

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

purchaser of its flats) are being assessed, then, the petitioner's cases would have to be transferred to at various places where its customers reside. This is impossibility. Further, where transaction take place in the course of its business and a search takes place on such other persons at the place where such person is assessed, it would not necessarily

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus donations, additional salary payments, payments to MCI Inspectors, etc. Therefore, when there is no evidence to prove these allegations, the only fall out would be that the alleged unaccounted cash has been utilised for the purpose of the objects of the trust. But the assessing officer has not accepted the contention that the alleged capitation fee has been utilised

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement recorded u/s.132(4) and wanted to cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee and held that testimony of witnesses