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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay.\n7.\nThe brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad\nKansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of\nmanufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL\nIspat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business\nincome of ₹ 4,120,060/-.\nPage 4 of 40\nITA

RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 48/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajiv Kumar Bhutra, No. 3, 3Rd Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Mysore Road, Ward – 5 (2) (4), Bangalore – 560 026. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aakpb9339F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca For Revenue : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/01/2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That, There Is A Delay In Filing Present Appeal Before This Tribunal Amounting To 1045 Days. 3. We Note That Assessee Has Not Filed Any Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit In Support Explaining The Delay Of 1045 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld.Ar At The Time Of Hearing Relied On Order Passed By Coordinate Smc Bench Of This Tribunal For Assessment Year 2014-15 In Assesses Own Case In Support.

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term capital gain. 6. The assessee Shri Sanjiv Bhutra had purchased 6000 shares of Cresanda Sales

SRI. HABEEB SHAIK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus purchase and assessed the income at Rs.49,53,810, and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act dated 26th March, 2021. The A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, on 27.12.2021. Against both the orders, the appeal was instituted on 22nd April, 2023 before the FAA with a delay

SMT KUSHALAPPA SAVITRI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to sustaining addition u/s. 68 of the Act as follows:- (i) Unexplained cash deposit 1,00,00,000 (ii) Advance received received from Shri Venkatesh 75,00,000 Gowda. (iii) Advance received from Shri Rajanna

HARANAHALLI LAKSHMANA SETTY NAGARAJA,RAJAJINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

bogus invoices and claimed input tax credit under the GST Act and therefore proposed to treat the said purchases as not genuine. The assessee filed all the documents to show that the purchases made by him are genuine. The AO not accepted the submissions made by the assessee and disallowed the said purchases u/s. 37 of the Act. As against

LAKSHMANRAM BHEEMAJI PUROHIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

purchase. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The appeal before us was filed late by 65 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The main reasons state that the assessee did not have any knowledge of taxation

SHRI. SANJIV BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term capital gain. 6. The assessee Shri Sanjiv Bhutra had purchased 6000 shares of Cresanda Sales

SHRI. RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term capital gain. 6. The assessee Shri Sanjiv Bhutra had purchased 6000 shares of Cresanda Sales

M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase of land was to be deleted” (iii) Overtop Marketing (P.) Ltd.[2023] 148 taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta) “since creditworthiness of lenders of assessee had been examined in depth by lower authorities and lenders companies had directly submitted documents before Assessing Officer, no substantial question of law arose for consideration from order of Tribunal affirming deletion of impugned additions under

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

delay, we condone the same and proceed to hear the matter on merit. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 2 to 9 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exempted capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act for Rs. 10,86,720/- only and treating the same

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658