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

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs. 29,39,002, contract charges of Rs. 2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding that

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

purchase of Rs. 29,39,002, contract charges of Rs. 2,61,33,838/-. By adding these amounts into opening WIP of Rs.3,18,87,396/-, a part of the amount of Rs.1,98,43,933/- was transferred into construction account. For this one engineer certificate was submitted. The verification carried out during the survey had revealed a finding 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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 132 of the Act can constitute\nthe basis for passing a block assessment order, notwithstanding the retraction from\nit, by the assessee. The discussion in this behalf reads as under:\n\"8. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the burden of proving the\nundisclosed income is squarely on the shoulders of the Department.\nAcquisition of properties

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

2(15) of the Act, Revenue has to show that the activities are not fitting with the objects of the Association and that the dominant activities are in the nature of trade, commerce and business. We do not think that by the volume of receipt one can draw the inference that the activity is commercial.” (D) Further in the case

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

Section 132 of the Act can constitute\nthe basis for passing a block assessment order, notwithstanding the retraction from\nit, by the assessee. The discussion in this behalf reads as under:\n\"8. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the burden of proving the\nundisclosed income is squarely on the shoulders of the Department.\nAcquisition of properties

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2,25,57,180 7.5 In view of the above discussion the following conclusions emerge:  The evidence of bogus booking of purchases were found and accepted during survey/search.  The claim of the assessee that declaration was made in order to conclude the proceedings and to avoid panic among fishermen considering the nature of the trade is not acceptable.  The fact

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

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

2,04,92,250/- and Grishneshwar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 1,55,60,250/-, so why this amount should not be added u/s 69C of the Act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 40 (vii) Therefore, assessee was asked that why the addition of unaccounted cash sales, unaccounted bogus purchases could not be added to the income