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

145 (Raj.)]\n•\nShree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159]\n•\nACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA\nNo. 1281 to 1284/Pun/2016]\n•\nAvishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [ITA\nNo.7165/MUM/2011] dated 17.06.2015.\n3.12 Additions to bogus purchase are invalid when sales have been\naccepted by the department:\n3.12.1 He stated that the learned

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus\nPurchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself.\n60.\nAccordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang\n/2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 19 are\nallowed.\n61.\nITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for\n assessment year 2019 20 raising several grounds of appeal.\nHowever, the main

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% is arbitrary and without basis. Hon’ble Courts and tribunals have consistently held that such arbitrary disallowances are not permissible unless specific defects or unverifiable vouchers are identified, which is not the case here. 3.5 It is also shown that if 25% disallowance is sustained, the gross profit ratio shoots

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% is arbitrary and without basis. Hon’ble Courts and tribunals have consistently held that such arbitrary disallowances are not permissible unless specific defects or unverifiable vouchers are identified, which is not the case here. 3.5 It is also shown that if 25% disallowance is sustained, the gross profit ratio shoots

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% is\narbitrary and without basis. Hon'ble Courts and tribunals have\nconsistently held that such arbitrary disallowances are not permissible\nunless specific defects or unverifiable vouchers are identified, which is\nnot the case here.\n3.5 It is also shown that if 25% disallowance is sustained, the gross\nprofit ratio shoots

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% is\narbitrary and without basis. Hon'ble Courts and tribunals have\nconsistently held that such arbitrary disallowances are not permissible\nunless specific defects or unverifiable vouchers are identified, which is\nnot the case here.\n3.5 It is also shown that if 25% disallowance is sustained, the gross\nprofit ratio shoots

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases.\n\n7.8 Furthermore, the assessee has consistently argued that whatever\nmaize was purchased, whether in cash or through banking channels, was\nfully sold to reputed buyers like Karnataka Milk Federation and Suguna\nFoods. The sales are not doubted, nor has any discrepancy in stock or\nquantitative tally been pointed out. We note that the argument of the\nassessee

M/S. MALOO CONSTRUCTIONS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

145 to 149 of the paper\nbook), we take note of the fact that the assessee had made total\npurchases from M/s. Gandhi Iron & Steel Co. amounting to\nRs.2,53,28,826/- out of which the AO had alleged Rs.97,57,825/-\nonly as bogus. The only allegation made by the authorities below is\nthat the assessee has claimed

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance of 25% is\narbitrary and without basis. Hon'ble Courts and tribunals have\nconsistently held that such arbitrary disallowances are not permissible\nunless specific defects or unverifiable vouchers are identified, which is\nnot the case here.\n\n3.5 It is also shown that if 25% disallowance is sustained, the gross\nprofit ratio shoots