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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

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) of the Act without corroborative evidence. The assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid without incriminating material. The Tribunal

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 for the year and agreed to offer\nthe same as additional income. Ld. D.R. further submitted that the\nstatement recorded

CHOKKANAHALLI GUNDAPPA CHANDRAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus sub-contract expenditures. Thus, the revenue’s reliance solely on the statements of the parties without any corroborative evidence is not at all acceptable. 10.5 Further, we also observe that during the course of assessment proceedings, the statement made by the assessee as well as two other parties during the course of survey were also retracted. The retraction / revised

CHOKKANAHALLI GUNDAPPA CHANDRAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result both these appeals filed by the\nassessee are allowed

bogus sub-contract expenditures. Thus, the revenue's\nreliance solely on the statements of the parties without any\ncorroborative evidence is not at all acceptable.\n\n10.5 Further, we also observe that during the course of\nassessment proceedings, the statement made by the assessee as\nwell as two other parties during the course of survey were also\nretracted. The retraction

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act does not carry the same evidentiary value as one recorded under oath during a search under section 132(4) of the Act or recorded under . ITA No.978, 1190 & CO No.24/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 68 section 131(1) of the Act. Such statements, especially when retracted later or unsupported by independent evidence, cannot be made the basis

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

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

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

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

bogus shareholders through\nbanking channels that as disputed. There were no countering\nevidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in\nthat case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the\naforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to\nsection 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus or involved any\nexchange of cash, which could imply an unaccounted transaction or\naccommodation entry.\n\n45.2 Secondly, we note that Shri Lakshmipath Surana, proprietor of\nRatan Trading Co., clearly explained his standard business procedure in\nhis statement obtained during the survey under section 133A of the Act.\nHe stated that his business does not maintain stock

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

133A\nof the Act at its associated concerns on 3rd November 2016. The\nsearch team did not find any concealed income that they probably\nthought the assessee company might be having. In spite of that the\nsearch team obtained from the Assessee a declaration of\nundisclosed income of huge amount of Rs.129 crore u/s 132(4) of\nthe Act spread

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

133A of the Act by the DDIT (Investigation) Delhi on 7/9/2022 and therefore in order to have coordinated investigation and to complete the assessment , the Principal Commissioner (Central) Bangalore has requested to transfer jurisdiction to DDIT Central Circle 1 (2) Bangalore. Accordingly, it was transferred from ITO [Exemption] Ward -1 Bangalore to DCIT / ACIT, central Circle -1 (2) Bangalore

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus shareholders through banking channels that as disputed. There were no countering evidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in that case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to section 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply