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

bogus purchases:\nName\nAmount\nSayeed Ebrahim\n61,97,117\nAbdul Rasheed\n71,75,937\nTotal\n1,33,73,054\n3.5.2 In this connection it may be noted that during the search\nproceedings we were asked to substantiate the purchases of fish\nmade from various parties. However, on the date of search we could\nnot readily produce the necessary confirmations from

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 40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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 40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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 40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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 40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus. The legal position makes it clear that such admissions are not binding and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 3.3 Furthermore, the assessee reiterated that that the disallowance of 25% of cash purchases is unjustified both in fact and law. The purchases mainly consist of maize, an agricultural produce, paid for in cash to farmers. As per Rule

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus. The legal position makes it clear that such admissions are not binding and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 3.3 Furthermore, the assessee reiterated that that the disallowance of 25% of cash purchases is unjustified both in fact and law. The purchases mainly consist of maize, an agricultural produce, paid for in cash to farmers. As per Rule

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases, and the admission was not corroborated. Regarding interest income, it was held that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without corroboration, and the admission was clarified as interest paid, not received, thus the addition was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "132(4)", "131(1)", "40A

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

bogus purchases. The admission was not conclusive and lacked corroborative evidence. Regarding the interest income, it was held that the loose sheets and computer printouts lacked corroboration and did not constitute substantive evidence of income. The addition was based on a rebuttable presumption and notional income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "132(4)", "131(1)", "40A

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 40A(3) of the\nAct. The purchases are properly recorded in the books, audited under\nsection 44AB of the Act, disclosed in VAT returns, and supported by\nstock statements already filed with the AO. The transactions also\nattracted RMC cess, further confirming their genuineness. Sales have\nbeen made to reputed parties such as Karnataka Milk Federation,\nVenkateshwara Hatcheries