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

section 133A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961, are as follows: (i) an admission is extremely an important\npiece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it\nis open to the person who made the admission to show that it is\nincorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper\nopportunity to show that

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

purchase bills to various entities, and there was no actual supply of goods. Further during the post search enquiry statement of Shri Urvil A Jani, one of the key persons of the Oneworld group of companies recorded on 08.02.2020, wherein he admitted that various Oneworldd group entities have made bogus purchase/bogus sales transactions with various entities controlled and managed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

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

151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was\ndefined to mean those years which would fall beyond

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

151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was\ndefined to mean those years which would fall beyond

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt\nthat it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating\nexpenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the\nassessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should\nnot be invoked in the assessee's case

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

151 by categorically holding that "the expression 'expenditure' will also include a loss and therefore, issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which it is issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of section 37(1) of the Act." 10. The assessee

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

2)(b) of the Act.\n\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus bills, and assessee had made sizeable purchases from him, reopening notice against assessee was justified. In Avirat Star Homes Venture (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO, 102 taxmann.com 60 it was held that where information was received from investigation wing about certain companies that they were involved in giving accommodation entries of various natures to several beneficiaries and assessee

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

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

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