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

4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries were

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

4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries were

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

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 question that in this year also i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 question that in this year also i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 question that in this year also i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 question that in this year also i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

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 question that in this year also i.e. the F. Y. 2017-18, as on date, we have made

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

4) from Sri K. Mohammed Haris, the Director\nwho handled the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statement\nrecorded from Sri Mohammed Shareef, Accountant, during the\ncourse of search proceedings was shown to him which contained\nthe list of bogus purchases made in the books of the assessee. Sri\nK. Mohammed Haris admitted that bogus purchase entries were

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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

section 132 (4) has evidentiary value and accordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 22. With respect to the bogus purchases

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 132 (4) has evidentiary value and\naccordingly the addition was confirmed. Against this assessee is in\nappeal before us.\n22.\nWith respect to the bogus purchases

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 153C of the Act. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act is not void-ab-initio and it is evident that the assessee has made admission of bogus purchase

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus. The complete detail of such discount qua party and qua the invoices are made available to the lower authorities. Even the statement of the partner of the assessee firm during the course of search states that ‘other discount’ is required to be substantiated. In the absence of such substantiation, he agreed for disallowance. However, when later on during

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

bogus. The complete detail of such discount qua party and qua the invoices are made available to the lower authorities. Even the statement of the partner of the assessee firm during the course of search states that ‘other discount’ is required to be substantiated. In the absence of such substantiation, he agreed for disallowance. However, when later on during

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

4 of 42 (i) The said parties from whom the assessee had stated to have made purchases were not available at the addresses shown and never operated from those addresses either; (ii) That the payments made by the assessee to the said parties were into the accounts introduced by the assessee etc., and in the same bank where the assessee

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

4 of 42 (i) The said parties from whom the assessee had stated to have made purchases were not available at the addresses shown and never operated from those addresses either; (ii) That the payments made by the assessee to the said parties were into the accounts introduced by the assessee etc., and in the same bank where the assessee