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

1 2011-12 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total

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

1 2011-12 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total

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

1 2011-12 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total

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

1 2011-12 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total

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

1 2011-12 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

13 of 36 explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act will be applicable only when there is money, bullion, jewellery found at the time of search, which is claimed to have been acquired out of income of any previous year, or, there must be income based on any entry in the books of accounts or other documents

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

13. In O. Abdul Rajaks case (supra), the Kerala High Court took the view that a\nstatement recorded under sub-section (4) of Section 132 of the Act can constitute\nthe basis for passing a block assessment order, notwithstanding the retraction from\nit, by the assessee. The discussion in this behalf reads as under:\n\"8. It cannot be doubted

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

13. The expression ‘reason to believe' still continues to be part of main section 147. There is no distinction at all between the assessment deemed to be completed under section 143(1) and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

13,12,76,982/- being 34,95,64,587/- purchases from registered dealers under the facts and circumstances of the case. g) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the impugned purchases have been declared in the statutory returns filed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and thus the addition made by holding that the appellant failed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

13,12,76,982/- being 34,95,64,587/- purchases from registered dealers under the facts and circumstances of the case. g) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the impugned purchases have been declared in the statutory returns filed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and thus the addition made by holding that the appellant failed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

13,12,76,982/- being 34,95,64,587/- purchases from registered dealers under the facts and circumstances of the case. g) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the impugned purchases have been declared in the statutory returns filed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and thus the addition made by holding that the appellant failed

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

13. In O. Abdul Rajaks case (supra), the Kerala High Court took the view that a\nstatement recorded under sub-section (4) of Section 132 of the Act can constitute\nthe basis for passing a block assessment order, notwithstanding the retraction from\nit, by the assessee. The discussion in this behalf reads as under:\n\"8. It cannot be doubted

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

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods