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

revised return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 also substantiates the statement of the appellant given during the course of survey and under oath u/s 131.  Hence the retraction of the appellant now from the statement given is without any valid evidence. 10.1 The issue relevant here is that the evidences point out the modus operandi of the appellant, confirmed

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

revised return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 also substantiates the statement of the appellant given during the course of survey and under oath u/s 131.  Hence the retraction of the appellant now from the statement given is without any valid evidence. 10.1 The issue relevant here is that the evidences point out the modus operandi of the appellant, confirmed

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

revised return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 also substantiates the statement of the appellant given during the course of survey and under oath u/s 131.  Hence the retraction of the appellant now from the statement given is without any valid evidence. 10.1 The issue relevant here is that the evidences point out the modus operandi of the appellant, confirmed

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

revised return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 also substantiates the statement of the appellant given during the course of survey and under oath u/s 131.  Hence the retraction of the appellant now from the statement given is without any valid evidence. 10.1 The issue relevant here is that the evidences point out the modus operandi of the appellant, confirmed

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

revised return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 also substantiates the statement of the appellant given during the course of survey and under oath u/s 131.  Hence the retraction of the appellant now from the statement given is without any valid evidence. 10.1 The issue relevant here is that the evidences point out the modus operandi of the appellant, confirmed

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

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 assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income\nduring Searches/Surveys conducted

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

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 assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income\nduring Searches/Surveys conducted

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus share capital by the Companies through the device of money laundering and hence it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is distinguishable on facts. 2.27 It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that if the learned Assessing officer has taken one of the possible views

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus share capital by the Companies through the device of money laundering and hence it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is distinguishable on facts. 2.27 It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that if the learned Assessing officer has taken one of the possible views

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

u/s 153C. The details of the purchase parties where inflation in purchases was accepted but not admitted in the return of income filed in response to 153C is as follows: ADDITION BILL PROVIDER PURCHASES ADMITTED 1 Abdul Rasheed 15,63,500 - 15,63,500 8,27,700 8,27,700 2 Sayeed Ebrahim

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. USK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DP, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2019-20

263 on 27.03.2024 and accepted the returned income filed by the assessee and no any further addition was made. Therefore addition made by the AO @ 10% on the turnover considering the entire shortcomings noted by the AO for enhancing the expenditure by treating bogus sub-contract expenses is totally wrong & very higher side. Accordingly he submitted that the CIT(Appeals

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

bogus purchases and additional income on account of alleged difference in Stock. Page 4 2.4 For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 23/11/2018 declaring total income of Rs.17,78,99,390/-, wherein the assessee declared income on account of inflated purchases and also on account of alleged difference in stock amounting to only Rs.5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act is not a relevant criteria to decide whether fair market value of shares issued by assessee is substantiated to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer or not. But, what is relevant is whether valuation report supports share price determined by the assessee or not. In this case, valuation report obtained by the assessee from

NAVUNDA ABDULLA BADRUDDIN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

bogus purchases, this fact needs to be examined based of further enquiry and evidences which in our considered view the AO has not done. 12. We will look at the provisions of Explanation (2) to section 263 which reads as follows:- 7 Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

revision u/s 263 whereas the case herein is reopening u/s 148 and non-adherance to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case. (iv) In the assessment order in para 3 it is mentioned that the AO had received information from Directorate of Income Tax (I&CI) and DGIT(Inv)-Kolkata based on which survey

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

revision u/s 263 whereas the case herein is reopening u/s 148 and non-adherance to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case. (iv) In the assessment order in para 3 it is mentioned that the AO had received information from Directorate of Income Tax (I&CI) and DGIT(Inv)-Kolkata based on which survey

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

revision u/s 263 whereas the case herein is reopening u/s 148 and non-adherance to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case. (iv) In the assessment order in para 3 it is mentioned that the AO had received information from Directorate of Income Tax (I&CI) and DGIT(Inv)-Kolkata based on which survey

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

revision u/s 263 whereas the case herein is reopening u/s 148 and non-adherance to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft case. (iv) In the assessment order in para 3 it is mentioned that the AO had received information from Directorate of Income Tax (I&CI) and DGIT(Inv)-Kolkata based on which survey