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

bogus purchases debited in the books for the FY 2016-17 which has been utilized for the investment made in our new plant coming up in the SEZ, and this additional income is over and above what is already shown in the books of the firm. To sum up the total additional income offered for taxation in the hands

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

bogus purchases debited in the books for the FY 2016-17 which has been utilized for the investment made in our new plant coming up in the SEZ, and this additional income is over and above what is already shown in the books of the firm. To sum up the total additional income offered for taxation in the hands

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

bogus purchases debited in the books for the FY 2016-17 which has been utilized for the investment made in our new plant coming up in the SEZ, and this additional income is over and above what is already shown in the books of the firm. To sum up the total additional income offered for taxation in the hands

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

bogus purchases debited in the books for the FY 2016-17 which has been utilized for the investment made in our new plant coming up in the SEZ, and this additional income is over and above what is already shown in the books of the firm. To sum up the total additional income offered for taxation in the hands

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

section 68 cannot be imputed in the case of purchases. There is not even an allegation that the price paid was in excess or unreasonable. The trading results cannot be disturbed. Since the assessee has submitted substantial documents and books of accounts in support of its claim, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. On the contrary

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

section 68 cannot be imputed in the case of purchases. There is not even an allegation that the price paid was in excess or unreasonable. The trading results cannot be disturbed. Since the assessee has submitted substantial documents and books of accounts in support of its claim, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. On the contrary

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 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

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 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

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 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

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 31 of Indian Evidence Act, 1878, admissions are not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebutted or retracted. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive and the maker can show that

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

44. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, following the decision of the honourable supreme court, we find that the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition, the appellate order is upheld. 45. Coming to the issue of assessment year 2018 – 19 we find that in this case the notice under section 153C of the act was issued on 17/6/2021 which

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

44. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, following the decision of the honourable supreme court, we find that the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition, the appellate order is upheld. 45. Coming to the issue of assessment year 2018 – 19 we find that in this case the notice under section 153C of the act was issued on 17/6/2021 which

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

44. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, following the decision of the honourable supreme court, we find that the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition, the appellate order is upheld. 45. Coming to the issue of assessment year 2018 – 19 we find that in this case the notice under section 153C of the act was issued on 17/6/2021 which

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

44. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, following the decision of the honourable supreme court, we find that the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition, the appellate order is upheld. 45. Coming to the issue of assessment year 2018 – 19 we find that in this case the notice under section 153C of the act was issued on 17/6/2021 which

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

44,04,412 8,64,276 Abdul Rasheed 15,63,500 66,88,221 SayeedEbrahim 8,27,700 60,72,877- Katakeriv Ebrahim Sayeed 53,91,670 53,91,670 TOTAL 86,47,146 2,25,57,180 8,64,276 In the statement u/s132(4) K.Mohammed Harris had admitted Rs.2,25,57,180/- bogus purchases for the year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 153C of the Act namely discretionary in assets/documents in the course of search conducted in the case of any person that belong to the assessee and is relevant for computing the income of the assessee for the year under appeal is totally absent. 3. The facts of the issue are that there was a search

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

44,04,412 Abdul Rasheed 66,88,221 SayeedEbrahim 60,72,877 Katakeri Ebrahim Sayeed 53,91,670 TOTAL 2,25,57,180 7.5 In view of the above discussion the following conclusions emerge:  The evidence of bogus booking of purchases were found and accepted during survey/search.  The claim of the assessee that declaration was made in order to conclude

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 142 of the Act was issued on\n3/3/2022 addressed to all legal heirs jointly.\n10.\nIn the notice, Id AO asked that\n(i)\nduring search at the residence of the assessee certain paper\nsheets and images in mobile were found and seized which\nrevealed that certain cash transactions were done which were\nnot recorded in the books