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

purchases made by assessee from these parties and treat\nit as a bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some

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

purchases made by assessee from these parties and treat\nit as a bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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

158B(b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

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 purchases for assessment year 2018 19\nu/s.69C of the Act of ₹ 42,815,000/- the learned CIT – A held that\napart from stating that the relevant bills/invoices/payments details\nand GST returns have been submitted no other details has been\nfurnished by the assessee to show that the purchases are real. Therefore, he upheld the findings of the learned assessing

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed\n- Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party\ninformation gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been\nindependently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not\nprovided copy of such statements to assessee, thus, denying opportunity of cross\nexamination

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

bogus. These are only the computation of long term capital gain from sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action containing details of long term capital gain would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Apart from the fact that

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In the said\ncase, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees were habitual\noffenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there is nothing in the\npresent case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement made by Mr. Anu\nAggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such admission.”\n5.6 Further

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

purchases of Molasses at Chitali Unit, by entering accommodation\nentries in our books against the bogus bills from contractors, transport providers. Entities\nsuch as Om Chemicals, Shivam Bulk provide us accommodation entries. Through Shri.\nAshok Khurade and Shri. Amol Khurade we get bogus contractors bills. These cash that is\ngenerated are routed back to Bangalore through our cars. This

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

bogus shareholders through\nbanking channels that as disputed. There were no countering\nevidences with the department in the form of seized materials etc in\nthat case to disprove the claim. Further, the ratio arrived at in the\naforesaid case have been nullified by a specific amendment to\nsection 68 vide Finance Act 2012. None of the above facts apply