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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus purchases

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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus purchases

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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus purchases

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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus purchases

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 68 cannot be imputed in the case of purchases. There is not even an allegation that the price paid was in excess or unreasonable. The trading results cannot be disturbed. Since the assessee has submitted substantial documents and books of accounts in support of its claim, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. On the contrary

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 68 cannot be imputed in the case of purchases. There is not even an allegation that the price paid was in excess or unreasonable. The trading results cannot be disturbed. Since the assessee has submitted substantial documents and books of accounts in support of its claim, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. On the contrary

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

purchases by the appellant from the said company as bogus and the appellant was not provided with any details and documents gathered against him and also an opportunity of cross-examination of the said companies ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 40 were not provided to the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice and consequently

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

purchases by the appellant from the said company as bogus and the appellant was not provided with any details and documents gathered against him and also an opportunity of cross-examination of the said companies ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 40 were not provided to the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice and consequently

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

purchases by the appellant from the said company as bogus and the appellant was not provided with any details and documents gathered against him and also an opportunity of cross-examination of the said companies ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 40 were not provided to the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice and consequently

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

purchases by the appellant from the said company as bogus and the appellant was not provided with any details and documents gathered against him and also an opportunity of cross-examination of the said companies ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 40 were not provided to the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice and consequently

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

section\n69C of the act by erroneously treating the German\nbusiness transactions with certain entities as bogus\npurchases on the facts and circumstances of the case.\nV.\nThe learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) and the\nlearned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the\nappellant has not made any purchase from the entity i.e.,\nM/s Vital Trexmin Pvt Limited

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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section 132 of the Act. 6. At the outset

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section 132 of the Act. 6. At the outset

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section 132 of the Act. 6. At the outset

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section 132 of the Act. 6. At the outset