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 purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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 purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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 purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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 purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation, or capacity utilisation should ordinarily be addressed through standard adjustments rather than outright exclusion. Finally, we strive for consistency with prior years unless there is a demonstrable change in facts. Proceeding on these principles, we deal with each impugned company below. BIT Mapper Integration Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 20. On facts, BIT Mapper is a design-led, system-level electronics

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus because of the reason that the original addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was deleted and depreciation was disallowed. The depreciation disallowance was not on account of user of the assets but only for the reason that Assessee did not explain to the satisfaction of the Ld. Assessing Officer the sources of fund for purchase

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus contractors bills. These cash that is\ngenerated are routed back to Bangalore through our cars. This we will use it for multiple\npurposes such as personal expenses, capital, payouts etc. The entire handling of cash is done\nby me and my assistant Shri. Mathew Joseph.\nPage 47 of 147\n20.8 However, it is noted by the ld. AO that

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase lubricating oil from different garages as well as through various brokers. Such lubricating oil was processed by him in his factory for sale. All payments were received by him through account payee cheques. In reply to question No. 5, he stated that he had seven full-time employees whose names are mentioned by him. He also claimed to have

M/S. CANARA BANK ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 1996-97 M/S. Canara Bank, Vs. Dcit, Fm Wing, Head Office, 112, J C Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 002. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024

purchase of the leased assets and the existence of the same. Therefore, CIT(A) directed the AO to grant the depreciation on the leased assets. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows: “15. The difference between this case and those dealt in paras