M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained money u/s.\n69A of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the\nappellant's case.\n4. The CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the tax imposed under\nthe provisions of section 115BBE at the rate of 60% under the facts and\nin the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n5. Without prejudice to the right

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act under the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant's case.\n4. The CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the tax imposed under\nthe provisions of section 115BBE at the rate of 60% under the facts and\nin the circumstances of the appellant's case.\n5. Without prejudice to the right

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

money, valuables, unaccounted assets or any other undisclosed income at the time of survey. However, AO estimated the value of the residential house at Rs.1 Crore. The AO has not evaluated the cost of residential house from a Valuation Officer or Income Tax registered Valuers. During the course of survey, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.20 lakhs

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

money, valuables, unaccounted assets or any other undisclosed income at the time of survey. However, AO estimated the value of the residential house at Rs.1 Crore. The AO has not evaluated the cost of residential house from a Valuation Officer or Income Tax registered Valuers. During the course of survey, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.20 lakhs

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

money. 9. That, to support of our above submission, we have also provided Xerox copies of the cash denomination book from the period 08.11.2016 to 31.12.20.16 maintained by the cashier of the society, which has also been provided. The Xerox copies of cash book from 01.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 relating to our head office have also been provided. 10. That, there

M/S. GLOBAL STAR INDMETAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

transfer of such money to the assessee, do not have any impact or significance to this case because a search/survey action was conducted in the group cases and evidences were found as a result of such action which pointed out the generation of unaccounted income of the group entities including the assessee. All the transactions relating to unaccounted income were

M/S. GLOBAL STAR INDMETAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

transfer of such money to the assessee, do not have any impact or significance to this case because a search/survey action was conducted in the group cases and evidences were found as a result of such action which pointed out the generation of unaccounted income of the group entities including the assessee. All the transactions relating to unaccounted income were

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

unexplained\ncash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar,\nwe consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14.\n\n7.1 The assessee is a Private Limited Company and\ncarries on the business as builders and real estate\ndevelopment, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar\nGroup of cases.\n\n7.2 The assessee filed the return

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

unexplained\ncash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar,\nwe consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14.\n7.1 The\nassessee is a Private Limited Company and\ncarries on the business as builders and real estate\ndevelopment, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar\nGroup of cases.\n7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

unexplained\ncash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar,\nwe consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14.\n7.1 The\nassessee is a Private Limited Company and\ncarries on the business as builders and real estate\ndevelopment, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar\nGroup of cases.\n7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

unexplained\ncash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar,\nwe consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14.\n7.1 The\nassessee is a Private Limited Company and\ncarries on the business as builders and real estate\ndevelopment, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar\nGroup of cases.\n7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

unexplained\ncash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar,\nwe consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14.\n\n7.1 The\nassessee is a Private Limited Company and\ncarries on the business as builders and real estate\ndevelopment, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar\nGroup of cases.\n\n7.2 The assessee filed the return

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

money could never be possible considering there is no physical existence of the same. By applying the theory of elimination, the only possibility is that advancing of such money never took place. Page 40 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.47 At the cost of repetition, he submitted that the AO erred in relying upon