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

10 Sunder G. Salian 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 12 Uday Kumar 12 Uday Kumar Salian 12 Uday Kumar Salian Salian 6.25 As could be noticed there from there were 12 partners upto 28.04.2016. As per Deed of Retirement dated 28.04.2016 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikhander retired from firm and thus the firm ITA Nos.62

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

10 Sunder G. Salian 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 12 Uday Kumar 12 Uday Kumar Salian 12 Uday Kumar Salian Salian 6.25 As could be noticed there from there were 12 partners upto 28.04.2016. As per Deed of Retirement dated 28.04.2016 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikhander retired from firm and thus the firm ITA Nos.62

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

10 Sunder G. Salian 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 12 Uday Kumar 12 Uday Kumar Salian 12 Uday Kumar Salian Salian 6.25 As could be noticed there from there were 12 partners upto 28.04.2016. As per Deed of Retirement dated 28.04.2016 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikhander retired from firm and thus the firm ITA Nos.62

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

10 Sunder G. Salian 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 11 T.S. Feroz Ahmed 12 Uday Kumar 12 Uday Kumar Salian 12 Uday Kumar Salian Salian 6.25 As could be noticed there from there were 12 partners upto 28.04.2016. As per Deed of Retirement dated 28.04.2016 Mohammed Mujeeb Sikhander retired from firm and thus the firm ITA Nos.62

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

bogus\npurchases. Since the facts are similar in all these assessment\nyears, we consider the facts in assessment year 2013-14.\n2.2 The appellant is engaged in the production of fish meal and\nextraction of fish oil. A search and seizure operation under Section\n132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"The Act\") was carried\nout

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

bogus\npurchases. Since the facts are similar in all these assessment\nyears, we consider the facts in assessment year 2013-14.\n2.2 The appellant is engaged in the production of fish meal and\nextraction of fish oil. A search and seizure operation under Section\n132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"The Act\") was carried\nout

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

bogus but not the entire purchase of materials. 10. From perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the Assessing Officer has not made any independent enquiry is perverse. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

bogus but not the entire purchase of materials. 10. From perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the Assessing Officer has not made any independent enquiry is perverse. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue

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

10. The Hon. CIT(A) and the LAO erred in relying on the statement of Sri. Janardhan in confirming that the purchases are bogus and without establishing any additional relationship between the Appellant and the vendors apart from the fact that the Appellant has had business relationship with these vendors over the past many years. 11. Without prejudice

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

10. The Hon. CIT(A) and the LAO erred in relying on the statement of Sri. Janardhan in confirming that the purchases are bogus and without establishing any additional relationship between the Appellant and the vendors apart from the fact that the Appellant has had business relationship with these vendors over the past many years. 11. Without prejudice

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

10. The Hon. CIT(A) and the LAO erred in relying on the statement of Sri. Janardhan in confirming that the purchases are bogus and without establishing any additional relationship between the Appellant and the vendors apart from the fact that the Appellant has had business relationship with these vendors over the past many years. 11. Without prejudice

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

10. The Hon. CIT(A) and the LAO erred in relying on the statement of Sri. Janardhan in confirming that the purchases are bogus and without establishing any additional relationship between the Appellant and the vendors apart from the fact that the Appellant has had business relationship with these vendors over the past many years. 11. Without prejudice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10% of the declared turnover of the manufacturing was upheld. The crux of the issue is that the learned CIT – A has reached at the conclusion that statement given by the daughter of the assessee under section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10% of the declared turnover of the manufacturing was upheld. The crux of the issue is that the learned CIT – A has reached at the conclusion that statement given by the daughter of the assessee under section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10% of the declared turnover of the manufacturing was upheld. The crux of the issue is that the learned CIT – A has reached at the conclusion that statement given by the daughter of the assessee under section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10% of the declared turnover of the manufacturing was upheld. The crux of the issue is that the learned CIT – A has reached at the conclusion that statement given by the daughter of the assessee under section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

section\n12AB(4) of Income Tax Act.\n3.0 In the case an action u/s 132(search) was concluded on 23/06/2022\nPage 22 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nand during the search the evidence unearthed have revealed the\noccurrence of following specified violations;\n(i) Diversion of trust funds to trustees for purchase of lands in their\nindividual capacity /advances

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bogus\nPurchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself.\n60.\nAccordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang\n/2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 19 are\nallowed.\n61.\nITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for\n assessment year 2019 20 raising several grounds of appeal.\nHowever, the main