M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

block assessment merely because any\nadmission was made by the Assessee during search operation.”\n[Emphasis in bold and underline supplied]\n(b) The Hon'ble High Court in the above case further noted that\nthe statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act may be used\nfor making the assessment but only to the extent it is relatable

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. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year 2018 – 19 in ITA number 170/Bengaluru/2024 wherein the learned assessing

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. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year 2018 – 19 in ITA number 170/Bengaluru/2024 wherein the learned assessing

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. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year 2018 – 19 in ITA number 170/Bengaluru/2024 wherein the learned assessing

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. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year 2018 – 19 in ITA number 170/Bengaluru/2024 wherein the learned assessing

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchases made by assessee from these parties and treat it as a bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as undisclosed income of the assessee. 5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under: “Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of the CBDT that some assessees were

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

bogus purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

M/S SHAMARAJU & COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot

M/S DIVYASHREE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot

M/S DIVYASREE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot

M/S DIVYASHREE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SHYAMARAJU & COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot

M/S DIVYASHREE INFRASTRUCTURE ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

assessments concluded u/s 143(3) and hence cannot be questioned is not logical. The search action in case of the assessee has brought to light the fact of bogus URD purchases and various statements of the employees of the assessee substantiate the finding of bogus URD purchases, hence in the light of the new evidence, the URD purchases cannot