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

40A(3) to\naugment trade. After granting this facility, we are of the view that the department\ncannot insist the assessees to get the suppliers confirm to the department about the\nsupplies made to the assessee and the payments received by them. In our view, the\nassessee should be taken to have discharged their burden by furnishing the copies

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(3). 2

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(3). 2

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(3). 2

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

40A(2)(b) of the Act. 22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), the facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

40A(2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

40A(2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

40A(2)(b) of the Act.\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain expenses

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

40A(2)(b) of the Act.\n\n22. With regard to the decision of the ITAT in the case of Accenture Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the facts of the case of Accenture Services (P.)\nLtd. (supra) are identical. In the case of Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nthe facts were that the assessee company incurred certain

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

2. Copies of mining lease held if any by the parties from whom the unregistered purchases of iron ore has been made. 4. In response to the above, the assessee filed a letter dated 14.03.2013 with regard to the above questionnaire, submitted the payments for said unregistered purchases have been made. However, the assessee did not furnish any substantiating proof

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

2. Copies of mining lease held if any by the parties from whom the unregistered purchases of iron ore has been made. 4. In response to the above, the assessee filed a letter dated 14.03.2013 with regard to the above questionnaire, submitted the payments for said unregistered purchases have been made. However, the assessee did not furnish any substantiating proof

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

2. Copies of mining lease held if any by the parties from whom the unregistered purchases of iron ore has been made. 4. In response to the above, the assessee filed a letter dated 14.03.2013 with regard to the above questionnaire, submitted the payments for said unregistered purchases have been made. However, the assessee did not furnish any substantiating proof

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt\nthat it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating\nexpenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the\nassessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should\nnot be invoked in the assessee's case

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

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