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

36,89,88,138.00 7.6 As can be seen from the above considerable portion of the purchases, i.e 60.45% is either in cash or in the form of bearer cheques. 7.7 In Q. No. 7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main

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

36,89,88,138.00 7.6 As can be seen from the above considerable portion of the purchases, i.e 60.45% is either in cash or in the form of bearer cheques. 7.7 In Q. No. 7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main

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

36,89,88,138.00 7.6 As can be seen from the above considerable portion of the purchases, i.e 60.45% is either in cash or in the form of bearer cheques. 7.7 In Q. No. 7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main

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

36,89,88,138.00 7.6 As can be seen from the above considerable portion of the purchases, i.e 60.45% is either in cash or in the form of bearer cheques. 7.7 In Q. No. 7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main

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 SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

iii) M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders (name of the proprietrix is Mrs. Susheelamma, who is mother of Mr. A Manjunath). The seized documents including the bank details indicated inter alia that though these concerns stood in the name of Mr. A Manjunath and his mother, these were de facto controlled by M/s. SPR Group Holdings Private Limited. The seized materials also

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

iii) M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders (name of the proprietrix is Mrs. Susheelamma, who is mother of Mr. A Manjunath). The seized documents including the bank details indicated inter alia that though these concerns stood in the name of Mr. A Manjunath and his mother, these were de facto controlled by M/s. SPR Group Holdings Private Limited. The seized materials also

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

iii) M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders (name of the proprietrix is Mrs. Susheelamma, who is mother of Mr. A Manjunath). The seized documents including the bank details indicated inter alia that though these concerns stood in the name of Mr. A Manjunath and his mother, these were de facto controlled by M/s. SPR Group Holdings Private Limited. The seized materials also

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

iii) M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders (name of the proprietrix is Mrs. Susheelamma, who is mother of Mr. A Manjunath). The seized documents including the bank details indicated inter alia that though these concerns stood in the name of Mr. A Manjunath and his mother, these were de facto controlled by M/s. SPR Group Holdings Private Limited. The seized materials also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

bogus expenses, as assessee is bound by KERC rates. It was noted by him that this is one of the issues on the side of the liability. And there may be many such issues. As assessee failed to provide all the details, the learned that AO presumed that some expenses are ceased to exist for the year under consideration

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

bogus expenses, as assessee is bound by KERC rates. It was noted by him that this is one of the issues on the side of the liability. And there may be many such issues. As assessee failed to provide all the details, the learned that AO presumed that some expenses are ceased to exist for the year under consideration

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

iii. Without prejudice and not conceding that the sale of shares were in order, the learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the purchase cost incurred by the appellant IT(IT)A No.66/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 31 against the sale consideration of Rs.29,85,882/- brought to tax on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below

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

purchase of the lands. Reliance in this regard can be\nplaced on the following decisions:\n(i) Pr.CIT vs. Umesh Ishrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437\n(Bom)\n(ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H)\n(iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj)\n(iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri