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

138 during the year. As per the details furnished by the appellant the breakup of the payments for purchases is as follows: Amount Si. No. Description ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 45 of 85 1 Cash 1,27,54,667.00 2 Bearer Cheque 21,02,95,254.00 3 RTGS/Crossed Cheque

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

138 during the year. As per the details furnished by the appellant the breakup of the payments for purchases is as follows: Amount Si. No. Description ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 45 of 85 1 Cash 1,27,54,667.00 2 Bearer Cheque 21,02,95,254.00 3 RTGS/Crossed Cheque

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

138 during the year. As per the details furnished by the appellant the breakup of the payments for purchases is as follows: Amount Si. No. Description ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 45 of 85 1 Cash 1,27,54,667.00 2 Bearer Cheque 21,02,95,254.00 3 RTGS/Crossed Cheque

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

138 during the year. As per the details furnished by the appellant the breakup of the payments for purchases is as follows: Amount Si. No. Description ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 45 of 85 1 Cash 1,27,54,667.00 2 Bearer Cheque 21,02,95,254.00 3 RTGS/Crossed Cheque

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

ACIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S. JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

section allows deduction on account of revenue expenditure incurred in Scientific Research while Sec.35(2)(ia) of the Act allows deduction on account of capital expenditure. The AO also disallowed depreciation claimed on said assets which were claimed to have been addition to the fixed assets to the extent of Rs.16,20,85,711/- during the relevant previous year

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase of land was to be deleted” (iii) Overtop Marketing (P.) Ltd.[2023] 148 taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta) “since creditworthiness of lenders of assessee had been examined in depth by lower authorities and lenders companies had directly submitted documents before Assessing Officer, no substantial question of law arose for consideration from order of Tribunal affirming deletion of impugned additions under

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

purchase\nbooks, cash books and sale bills. In reply to question No. 18,\nhe, on his own, stated that his big customers were the\nReliance Oil Mills and Eastern Commercial Enterprises, the\nassessee, in the present reference. As for his cash\nwithdrawals, he explained that his business required ready\ncash for purchase of raw materials which explained his large\ndrawings

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment