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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

31,471 and deleted the balance of Rs.28,73,432. While\ndoing so, he deleted the addition on account of bogus purchases had already been\nmade. The Tribunal, on the opinion that the twelve and half per cent of the\ndisputed purchases should be retained in the hands of the assessee as business\nprofit. Held, dismissing the appeal, that

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

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 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

31,94,300 Rs.4,19,82,580 Solapur Total Rs.9,62,97,006 Rs.11,94,65,150 4. The AO had noticed that substantial purchases of sunflower de-oiled cakes were made from the above concerns. After analyzing the evidence gathered during the course of search and subsequent inquiries, the AO made out that — the invoices on supplies showed that

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

31,94,300 Rs.4,19,82,580 Solapur Total Rs.9,62,97,006 Rs.11,94,65,150 4. The AO had noticed that substantial purchases of sunflower de-oiled cakes were made from the above concerns. After analyzing the evidence gathered during the course of search and subsequent inquiries, the AO made out that — the invoices on supplies showed that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed