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

41 of the Act can be made by the Assessing officer as well, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground on interest levied u/s 234B of the Act: 27. The learned Assessing Officer is erred in levying the interest under section 234B of the Act and further calculation of interest under section 234B

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

section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied

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

section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied

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

section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied

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

section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied

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

section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). 4.5 The ld. A.R. relied

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

section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.03.2013 was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish substantiating evidence of the persons from whom the undersigned purchase is claimed to have been made by producing the following documents. 1. Full and true disclosure of the parties along with their PANs from whom the unregistered iron ore is claimed

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

section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.03.2013 was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish substantiating evidence of the persons from whom the undersigned purchase is claimed to have been made by producing the following documents. 1. Full and true disclosure of the parties along with their PANs from whom the unregistered iron ore is claimed

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

section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.03.2013 was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish substantiating evidence of the persons from whom the undersigned purchase is claimed to have been made by producing the following documents. 1. Full and true disclosure of the parties along with their PANs from whom the unregistered iron ore is claimed

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 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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 37(1) of Income Tax Act. 9.3 Further, Shri Janardhan V, in his statement also admitted that (vide answer to question no.5) the payments made to the extents of Rs. 27,49,31,189/-for the various years listed against parties in whose name the same have been booked was bogus as there was no purchase of any goods

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

41,24,102/-\nΑ.Υ. 2011-12\n4\nDisallowance of Purchases:\na) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by\nthe assessing officer of Rs.14,77,63,883/- being purchases\nfrom registered dealers under the facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\n4,56,59,040/-\nb) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the impugned\npurchases have

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

purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

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

1) of the Act which expressly restricts the computation of undisclosed income to the evidence found during search, the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot be the sole basis for making

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

1) of the Act which expressly restricts the computation of undisclosed income to the evidence found during search, the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot be the sole basis for making

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

1) of the Act which expressly restricts the computation of undisclosed income to the evidence found during search, the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot be the sole basis for making