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

134 was estimated. He submitted that the purchases made are actual and are used for the purpose of the business. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 16 of 85 6.9 The ld. A.R. submitted that the dealing in fish is an unorganized sector and in this line of business it is obvious that

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

134 was estimated. He submitted that the purchases made are actual and are used for the purpose of the business. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 16 of 85 6.9 The ld. A.R. submitted that the dealing in fish is an unorganized sector and in this line of business it is obvious that

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

134 was estimated. He submitted that the purchases made are actual and are used for the purpose of the business. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 16 of 85 6.9 The ld. A.R. submitted that the dealing in fish is an unorganized sector and in this line of business it is obvious that

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

134 was estimated. He submitted that the purchases made are actual and are used for the purpose of the business. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 16 of 85 6.9 The ld. A.R. submitted that the dealing in fish is an unorganized sector and in this line of business it is obvious that

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

purchase of property, however, the said loan was never transferred to the trust and therefore this transaction was for the personal benefit of the trustee, hence it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. The ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

purchase peace and avoid any protracted litigation. Hence, while filing the return of income u/s 153A for AY 15-16 and AY 16-17, certain additional income came to be disclosed. The following is the original income declared, and the additional income declared for AY 15-16 and AY 16- 17 (returns are placed in pages 134

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

purchase\npeace and avoid any protracted litigation. Hence, while filing the return\nof income u/s_153A for AY 15-16 and AY 16-17, certain additional\nincome came to be disclosed. The following is the original income\ndeclared, and the additional income declared for AY 15-16 and AY 16-\n17 (returns are placed in pages 134-195 of the paper

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

134 found and seized from the office of M/s. Coffee Day Global Ltd. At No.23/2, Coffee Day Square, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 6.2 Considering the above documents for recording satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, he recorded satisfaction as below: “A statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act was recorded from Shri Prakash Talreja on 21.09.2017 wherein he denied

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

134 found and seized from the office of M/s. Coffee Day Global Ltd. At No.23/2, Coffee Day Square, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 6.2 Considering the above documents for recording satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, he recorded satisfaction as below: “A statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act was recorded from Shri Prakash Talreja on 21.09.2017 wherein he denied