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

132(4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In the said\ncase, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees were habitual\noffenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there is nothing in the\npresent case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement made by Mr. Anu\nAggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such admission.”\n5.6 Further

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In the said\ncase, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees were habitual\noffenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there is nothing in the\npresent case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement made by Mr. Anu\nAggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such admission.”\n5.6 Further

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

132(4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries

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 purchases and offered them as additional income, but the amount declared in the return was less than what was admitted.", "held": "The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on statements recorded under Section 132(4

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 153C of the Act. On the other\nhand, ld. D.R. submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of\nthe Act is not void-ab-initio and it is evident that the assessee has\nmade admission of bogus purchase

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

132(4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries

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

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 i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and\naccordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in\nappeal before us.\n22.\nWith respect to the bogus purchases