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

reopening of assessment, the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped from assessment on the basis of the sworn statement recorded from the partner namely Mr. Uday Kumar Salian in view of the bogus purchase

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

reopening of assessment, the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped from assessment on the basis of the sworn statement recorded from the partner namely Mr. Uday Kumar Salian in view of the bogus purchase

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

reopening of assessment, the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped from assessment on the basis of the sworn statement recorded from the partner namely Mr. Uday Kumar Salian in view of the bogus purchase

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

reopening of assessment, the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped from assessment on the basis of the sworn statement recorded from the partner namely Mr. Uday Kumar Salian in view of the bogus purchase

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

assessments.\n8.9 We are of the view that the statement recorded u/s. 131 cannot be\nindependently used for making any addition in the hands of the assesse\nand the said statement cannot, in our view, be the sole basis for making\nany addition and must be independently corroborated by evidences. Thus,\non a careful reading of the decisions

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

assessment which is completed u/s 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper reason to believe. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases

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

purchases made by assessee from these parties and treat\nit as a bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some

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

purchases made by assessee from these parties and treat\nit as a bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,MANGALORE, MANGALORE vs. RAJ DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

bogus purchases due to the failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases made and struck down the profit estimation made by the CIT(A) & ITAT. 9. The ld. AR on the other hand vehemently submitted that the assessment for the AY 2018-19 was already concluded by the AO by passing the order

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. DREAM LOGISTICS COMPANY LIMITED ,YALLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2011-12

reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of statement given before the ADIT(Inv), Ballari by one Sri Irrana Sankarappa Baddur, Proprietor of M/s. Megha Minerals in which he had deposed that he has not made any supply of iron ore to the assessee during the assessment year 2010-11. On that basis, the AO alleged that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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