AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

sections": [ "143(1)", "68", "115BBE", "270A", "145(1)", "37(1)", "145(3)", "271AAC", "249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

sections": [ "68", "115BBE", "143(1)", "145(1)", "145(3)", "270A", "271AAC", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition of share

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "270A", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "145(1)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

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

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

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

68,43,155/-. This also supports our contention that\nthe assessments records were not verified by the Learned JCIT.\nh) The Learned JCIT gave an approval under Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No

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

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates

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

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n\n5. 1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

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

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

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

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

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates

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