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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Dhariya Construction

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

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCEL-11(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

purchases have been made from Netherland based companies also. Keeping this in view and the unsatisfactory reply forthcoming from the General Manager (Fin) and the Managing Director of the company, I hold that it is highly unlikely as to why the assessee company will pay such huge amount to non resident company at Hong Kong. I hold that the payment

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

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, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus purchase of Rs.27,49,31,180/- from various concerns for which Shri Suresh Gowda, Executive Director of the company agreed and offered additional income of Rs.9.96 crores in the hands of SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 9.2.2011 for the financial year 2008-09 to financial year ITA Nos.1658

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reopening of the assessment and all these grounds were disposed of together by the ld. CIT(A) as per Para 5.4 of his order without ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 50 giving any specific finding in respect of these objections of the assessee regarding absence of preconditions prescribed under section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reopening of the assessment and all these grounds were disposed of together by the ld. CIT(A) as per Para 5.4 of his order without ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 50 giving any specific finding in respect of these objections of the assessee regarding absence of preconditions prescribed under section