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 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

purchases shown through account payee cheques and to parties claimed are held to be bogus), so they would either be through some unaccounted sales or unaccounted production or by payments in cash [out of drawings from these fictitious bank accounts in the names of these 3 parties] in which case, the appellant would be covered by the provisions of section

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

purchases shown through account payee cheques and to parties claimed are held to be bogus), so they would either be through some unaccounted sales or unaccounted production or by payments in cash [out of drawings from these fictitious bank accounts in the names of these 3 parties] in which case, the appellant would be covered by the provisions of section

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

purchases made by assessee cannot be treated to be 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

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

purchases made by assessee cannot be treated to be 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

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

purchases made by assessee cannot be treated to be 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

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

purchases made by assessee cannot be treated to be 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

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

purchases made by assessee cannot be treated to be 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

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

purchasing loans by the Petitioner from HDFC Ltd. would fall within the meaning of a SDT, in which case, for this transaction, the ALP has to be determined by the TPO. 27. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the Revenue. What explanation (a) to section 40A(2)(b) clearly

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