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

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

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

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

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

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

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

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

deposits during the demonetization period. It is an admitted fact that assessee is engaged in the business of trading of electrical wires and trading in electrical equipments, products etc. find assessee has placed on record the details of cash sales made [a copy of which is placed in paper book] and it contains the details namely the date of sale

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

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

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

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

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

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

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

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

cash to Shri Tarun Goyal and he, after depositing\nthe same in the bank account of various companies, issued cheques for\nshare application money. On these facts, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)\nwould be squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the statement of\nShri Tarun Goyal cannot be used against

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

cash to Shri Tarun Goyal and he, after depositing\nthe same in the bank account of various companies, issued cheques for\nshare application money. On these facts, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)\nwould be squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the statement of\nShri Tarun Goyal cannot be used against

NITIN KUMAR BOHRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

cash deposits with cogent material. The assessee has issued sale bills, but there is no name and address or contact no., PAN of the prospective buyers. Therefore the sales shown by the assessee are doubtful and the ld. FAA has also doubted the purchases of the assessee. The business of the assessee started in the month of October

UNITED ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

cash deposits are concerned. The Ld.AR further submitted that the AO had erred in treating the purchases made from M/s. Advance Computers & Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. as bogus

MR. M.L. KRUPAL,KODAGU vs. ITO, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2005-06 Late M.L. Krupal M/S. Prime Commodities Blv Complex Somwarpet 571 236 Represented By Legal Heir Suvina Krupal Ito Vs. C/O Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate Ward-1 No.2B, 2Nd Floor, ‘Solus’, Madikeri 1St Cross J.C. Road Bangalore 560 027

purchases were not disputed by the AO. Hence, we are also deleting the addition of Rs. 11,88,000/- under head bogus creditors and accordingly, this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. Ground No. 9 as reproduced at Para No. 3 with regard to additions amounting to Rs. 3,50,06,130/- treated as unexplained source of income

ITO, WARD-1, MADIKERI vs. SRI. M.L. KRUPAL, KODAGU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2005-06 Late M.L. Krupal M/S. Prime Commodities Blv Complex Somwarpet 571 236 Represented By Legal Heir Suvina Krupal Ito Vs. C/O Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate Ward-1 No.2B, 2Nd Floor, ‘Solus’, Madikeri 1St Cross J.C. Road Bangalore 560 027

purchases were not disputed by the AO. Hence, we are also deleting the addition of Rs. 11,88,000/- under head bogus creditors and accordingly, this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. Ground No. 9 as reproduced at Para No. 3 with regard to additions amounting to Rs. 3,50,06,130/- treated as unexplained source of income

SUHAS RAMESH RAO RANGADHOL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, we direct the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year :2017-18 Sri Suhas Ramesh Rao Rangadhol, Seetharama Sadana, Beside Adhichunchanagiri The Income Tax Officer, Samudaya Bhavana, Ward-4, Vs. Sharavathi Nagar,Shivamogga, Shimoga. Karnataka – 577 201. Pan: Agopr8445C Appellant Respondent

bogus, there is no reason to believe that the amount deposited by the Assessee which is duly disclosed in the books of the account of the Assessee as sales and as well as bank deposit is unaccounted income of the Assessee. 15. Accordingly, we find that lower authorities have confirmed the addition of Rs. 33,20,000/- incorrectly. Accordingly

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHET ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

deposit as unexplained under section 68 citing an abnormal cash sales but assessee proved sales with VAT returns, stock records, suppliers confirmation and since the cash was received from recorded sales and no discrepancies were found, the addition was not justified. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in 178 taxmann.com 768 with respect to cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

depositing into bank. It is impossible to achieve 75% of total turnover in one single month. The AO further noted that the assessee has shown GP around 10% till AY 2020-21, but has declared GP @ 25% for AY 2021-22 which is impossible in this line of business. The AO took the year-wise average sales