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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

145\n22 on 30.09.2022, as per the sixth proviso to section 153B(1) of the Act.\nTherefore, the assessments completed on 24.11.2023 and 28.11.2023\nare clearly barred by limitation and are void ab initio.\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

145 (Raj.)]\n•\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

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

3 parties. It was submitted that assessee is stated to have purchased the goods of ₹ 7,762,500/–from M/s Vital Trexim Private limited, RS. 20492250/- from M/S van Udyog Exim Private Limited and Rs. 1,55,60,250/- from M/s ExCom enterprises. 50. The first contention of the assessee is that assessment year 2018-19 is a concluded assessment

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

3 parties. It was submitted that assessee is stated to have purchased the goods of ₹ 7,762,500/–from M/s Vital Trexim Private limited, RS. 20492250/- from M/S van Udyog Exim Private Limited and Rs. 1,55,60,250/- from M/s ExCom enterprises. 50. The first contention of the assessee is that assessment year 2018-19 is a concluded assessment

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

3 parties. It was submitted that assessee is stated to have purchased the goods of ₹ 7,762,500/–from M/s Vital Trexim Private limited, RS. 20492250/- from M/S van Udyog Exim Private Limited and Rs. 1,55,60,250/- from M/s ExCom enterprises. 50. The first contention of the assessee is that assessment year 2018-19 is a concluded assessment

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

3 parties. It was submitted that assessee is stated to have purchased the goods of ₹ 7,762,500/–from M/s Vital Trexim Private limited, RS. 20492250/- from M/S van Udyog Exim Private Limited and Rs. 1,55,60,250/- from M/s ExCom enterprises. 50. The first contention of the assessee is that assessment year 2018-19 is a concluded assessment

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

3\nparties. It was submitted that assessee is stated to have purchased\nthe goods of ₹ 7,762,500/–from M/s Vital Trexim Private limited, RS.\n20492250/- from M/S van Udyog Exim Private Limited and Rs.\n1,55,60,250/- from M/s ExCom enterprises.\n50.\nThe first contention of the assessee is that assessment year 2018-19\nis a concluded assessment

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

Bogus\n2019-20\n11,51,54,100\nExpenditure\n6. Relevant Provisions of the Act\n6.1 Sub-sections 4 and 5 of section 12AB of the Act is reproduced below\n[(4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been q\nunder clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

145,41,60,713/- as advance from\nthe trust and utilized amount to the extent of Rs 121,06,96,555/- to purchase the lands in their\nnames. The Trust/ the Authorized representative has not given any explanation with respect to\nthe resulting unutilized amount of Rs 24,34,64,158/-.\n3.16 The above mentioned payments made during F.Y.2014-15

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

3) of the Act. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under section 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by stock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also attracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have been made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation, Venkateshwara Hatcheries, and Suguna Foods

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

3) of the Act. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under section 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by stock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also attracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have been made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation, Venkateshwara Hatcheries, and Suguna Foods

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

145,41,60,713/- as advance from\nthe trust and utilized amount to the extent of Rs 121,06,96,555/- to purchase the lands in their\nnames. The Trust/ the Authorized representative has not given any explanation with respect to\nthe resulting unutilized amount of Rs 24,34,64,158/-.\n3.16 The above mentioned payments made during F.Y.2014-15

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(3) of the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether the AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not empowered under the Act to do so. 52. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. (supra), when