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

5 of 85 the AO to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income from any assessment year has escaped assessment. 4.2 The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, and also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood

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

5 of 85 the AO to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income from any assessment year has escaped assessment. 4.2 The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, and also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood

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

5 of 85 the AO to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income from any assessment year has escaped assessment. 4.2 The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, and also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood

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

5 of 85 the AO to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income from any assessment year has escaped assessment. 4.2 The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, and also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 8.2.2018. The ld. AO made addition in these assessment years as follows: AY Addition towards Assessment bogus purchase made under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

5% to 12.5% as reasonable\nestimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases\"\n3.13.2 He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay\nin the case of JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1850 of 2017\ndated 28.10.2021) wherein held as under:\n“4. Having considered the memo of Appeal and the Orders passed

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

5% to 12.5% as reasonable\nestimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases\"\n3.13.2 He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay\nin the case of JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1850 of 2017\ndated 28.10.2021) wherein held as under:\n“4. Having considered the memo of Appeal and the Orders passed

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

5 of 42 7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues, among others, with the CIT (A). After taking into account the assessee's contentions and also the reasoning of the AO in disallowing the purchases of Rs.9.62 crores and Rs.11.94 crores allegedly made from the above named three entities and since the assessee was unable to contradict the observations

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

5 of 42 7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues, among others, with the CIT (A). After taking into account the assessee's contentions and also the reasoning of the AO in disallowing the purchases of Rs.9.62 crores and Rs.11.94 crores allegedly made from the above named three entities and since the assessee was unable to contradict the observations

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 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate

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 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate

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 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate

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 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

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

Bogus Purchases of Rs 4,38,15,000/- is deleted on that ground itself. 60. Accordingly, ITA number 410 Bangalore 2024 and CO no 6/bang /2024 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018 – 19 are allowed. 61. ITA number 411/Bangalore/2020, is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 raising several grounds of appeal. However, the main contention

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

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

5. The Tribunal has found that in the order passed by the PCIT, Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, 1961 is made applicable. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT has not mentioned in the show cause notice to invoke the Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without