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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

132 of the Act on 8.2.2018. The ld. AO made addition in these assessment years as follows: AY Addition towards Assessment bogus purchase made under section 2013-14 1

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and\ncompletion in accordance with law to render the\nproceedings valid under the facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\n3\nPrior Approval of the Additional Commissioner:\na) The prior approval of the Additional Commissioner was not\nobtained or having obtained, the copy of the same was not\nprovided

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) of the Act to adjudicate the validity of search under the facts & circumstances of the case. h) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the order of assessment

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) of the Act to adjudicate the validity of search under the facts & circumstances of the case. h) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the order of assessment

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) of the Act to adjudicate the validity of search under the facts & circumstances of the case. h) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the order of assessment

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) of the Act to adjudicate the validity of search under the facts & circumstances of the case. h) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the order of assessment

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) of the Act to adjudicate the validity of search under the facts & circumstances of the case. h) The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act did not exist, or having not been complied with and consequently the order of assessment

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

purchase of assets including intangible assets and consequently the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets on the premise that the consideration is paid in excess is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the consideration of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- was paid

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

purchase consideration of\nRs.13.60 crores shall be towards transfer of intangible assets of SHL to BNHL such as\ngoodwill, revenue rights, tenancy rights, permits etc.\n\n12.\nOn the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities\nand submitted that assessee has raised additional grounds challenging the\nvalidity under section 132 of the Act and submitted that