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(4) of the Act in respect of bogus purchases. Since the facts are similar in all these assessment years, we consider the facts in assessment year 2013-14. 2.2 The appellant is engaged in the production of fish meal and extraction of fish oil. A search and seizure operation under Section

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

132(4) of the Act in respect of bogus purchases. Since the facts are similar in all these assessment years, we consider the facts in assessment year 2013-14. 2.2 The appellant is engaged in the production of fish meal and extraction of fish oil. A search and seizure operation under Section

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

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

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

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