ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 13.12.2018, it was noticed that the assessee has received cash credit of Rs.8.31 Crores from the entity M/s. Mangal trading and clothing LLP during the relevant previous year and listed the entity as sundry creditors. However, on the basis of detailed enquiry carried out, the AO established that

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

68 of the Act for Rs.81,00,000/- and assessment was completed on 31/03/2022. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CITA) issued various notices on different dates but the assessee did not respond. Accordingly, the CIT(A) decided the 5 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 issue

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the Act. 10.7 The ld. A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 19l ITR 18(SC)wherein it was held as under: "Entries made by the assessee in the account books treating a portion of the general expenditure as expenses ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the Act. 10.7 The ld. A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 19l ITR 18(SC)wherein it was held as under: "Entries made by the assessee in the account books treating a portion of the general expenditure as expenses ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the Act. 10.7 The ld. A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 19l ITR 18(SC)wherein it was held as under: "Entries made by the assessee in the account books treating a portion of the general expenditure as expenses ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012

KARTIKEYAS MANGANESE & IRON ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

145(3) of the Act before completing the assessment. 13. The authorities below erred in relying on material A/BSG/01 & A/BSG/02 which was already held as belonging to Mr.Bharat S Ghorpade against whom separate proceedings u/s 153C was initiated and completed. 14. The authorities below erred in placing reliance on the statements given by Mr.Kartikeya M Ghorpade and Mrs.Ambika Ghorpade

INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

145, it 8 IT(T.P)A No.272/Bang/2012 has to be sustained with the accepted principles of accountancy. The Court held that it is not permissible to use gross methods for the purposes and net method for the unconsumed stock at the end of the year. Accordingly, it was held that MODVAT credit available to assessee could not be liable

M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

145,01,50,000 19,50,00,000 2,46,51,34,555 1 Dinesh Kumar Singhi 2 12,82,00,000 34,06,64,732 46,88,64,732 Snehalata Singhi 8,23,00,000 - - 8,23,00,000 3 Singhi Holdings Private Limited 6,40,00,000 - - 4 6,40,00,000 Singhi Finlease Private Limited

M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

3 to 6 as under : 17 19 21 23 25 27 It is manifest from the order of the Assessing Officer that he did not even take any step to examine the parties to the agreement. Thus it is a case of gross violation of directions of the Tribunal to examine parties to the agreement. It is pertinent to mention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

68 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 69 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 70 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 71 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 72 of 155 15. On the other hand, the learned DR relied

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

145(2), the assessee has to follow the principles laid down in the 1GDS. 5.2 Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that in case of the assessee, as it is a company, it has to mandatorily follow Accounting Standard for preparations of its accounts under the Companies Act, 2013 and follow the ICDS for computation of its income and the same

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

68 days.\n(iii)\nBased on the material found from Samsung C−9 Pro mobile of\nMs Parul kansaria during search proceedings confirmed in\nPage 5 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\nstatement u/s 132(4) where in answer to Q.No. 51 dated\n9/8/2019, she agreed that unaccounted cash sales of around ₹\n1.88 crores were made.\n(iv)\nMs Kansaria

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the act, which is after finding out the ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 40 material from assessee, his daughter, his manager it was found that assessee is indulging in sales

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the act, which is after finding out the ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 40 material from assessee, his daughter, his manager it was found that assessee is indulging in sales

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the act, which is after finding out the ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 40 material from assessee, his daughter, his manager it was found that assessee is indulging in sales