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

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 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier question that in this year also

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

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 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier question that in this year also

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

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 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier question that in this year also

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

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 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier question that in this year also

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

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

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

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

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

3 of 51 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

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

3 of 51 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

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

3 of 51 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

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

3 of 51 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

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

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

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

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year

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

purchase amount of ₹ 43,825,000/– as bogus. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 40 23. Firstly, we come to the appeal of the learned assessing officer filed for assessment year 2017 – 18 in ITA number 169/Bengaluru/2024 and for assessment year