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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

57,180/- bogus purchases for the year and agreed to offer\nthe same as additional income. However in the return of income filed\nin response to notice u/s 153C the assessee firm has declared only\nRs.8,64,276/-. The purchases recorded from the above parties in the\nbooks of account for the relevant period is Rs.86,47,146/-\nIn view

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

57,180/- bogus purchases for the year and agreed to offer\nthe same as additional income. However in the return of income filed\nin response to notice u/s 153C the assessee firm has declared only\nRs.8,64,276/-. The purchases recorded from the above parties in the\nbooks of account for the relevant period is Rs.86,47,146/-\nIn view

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

57. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the learned lower authorities and stated that when the assessee has entered into bogus purchases from three different parties and it was submitted before the assessing officer that all the purchases are done through account payee cheques payment and all the expenses are also fully booked, there is no reason

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

57. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the learned lower authorities and stated that when the assessee has entered into bogus purchases from three different parties and it was submitted before the assessing officer that all the purchases are done through account payee cheques payment and all the expenses are also fully booked, there is no reason

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

57. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the learned lower authorities and stated that when the assessee has entered into bogus purchases from three different parties and it was submitted before the assessing officer that all the purchases are done through account payee cheques payment and all the expenses are also fully booked, there is no reason

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

57. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the learned lower authorities and stated that when the assessee has entered into bogus purchases from three different parties and it was submitted before the assessing officer that all the purchases are done through account payee cheques payment and all the expenses are also fully booked, there is no reason

M/S. MALOO CONSTRUCTIONS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

57,825/- were bogus out of total purchases of Rs.2,53,28,826/-\nFurther, the invoices, E-way bills, bank statement, GST return,\nForm GSTR-2A along with ledger copy of M/s. Gandhi Iron & Steel\nCompany were also produced before the lower authorities which\nalso not found to be fake and therefore, the entire addition based on\nthe sole information

SWAMY HOLAGUNDI,HUVINA HADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

bogus. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are inclined to hold the purchases as made by the assessee from M/s. Shri Sai Baba Rice Swamy Holagundi Page 9 of 10 Industries to be genuine and accordingly no addition can be made under the provisions of section 69C of the act. 10. On going through the Income

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

57,681/- and Corporate Service Charges of Rs. 7,19,34,662/-. Accordingly, TPO adopting the CUP method and in line with judicial precedents, determined the ALP of the aforesaid payments at NIL. Consequently, a total adjustment of Rs. 7,30,92,343/- was proposed under section 92CA of the Act towards these international transactions. Accordingly, the AO incorporated

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

57,35,000/- made by the AO relying on the statement recorded during the search. 5. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the construction business through engagement of direct labour and subcontractors. The assessee company was subject to search proceedings under section 132 of the Act dated

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

section\n12 AA (3) nor in section 12 AA (4) it has been provided or is\nseen to have explicitly provided to have retrospective\ncharacter or intent.\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 54 of 81\n(ii) In Global Health Research and Management Institute versus\nthe PCIT Jaipur in ITA No. 397/Jodh/2019 dated 25 January\n2023 wherein in paragraph

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

section 12AB\nof the Act. He submits that though this proposition is applicable for\nthe first 3 years of the appeal and not for AY 2022-23 .\n27. For this proposition he referred to the provisions of section 12AB(4)\nwhich is enacted w.e.f. 1.4.2022. He therefore submitted that this\nsection cannot be invoked for cancelling the registration prior

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses\n(c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with\nthe said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and\n2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment\nyears.\n18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search action

PRAKASH PRAVEEN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

57 of the paper book, we find that the assessee have been appraised of making purchases from M/s. Supreme International, which the assessee has categorically denied by producing the purchase register for the month of March, 2018 as well as bank statement in which there is no transaction details recorded pertaining to M/s. Supreme International. Therefore, we agree with