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

7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main purchases are from Malpe. The partner has stated that major purchases are from local port Malpe. As stated by him in reply to Q. No. 9, outstation purchases are paid in cheques or banking

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

7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main purchases are from Malpe. The partner has stated that major purchases are from local port Malpe. As stated by him in reply to Q. No. 9, outstation purchases are paid in cheques or banking

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

7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main purchases are from Malpe. The partner has stated that major purchases are from local port Malpe. As stated by him in reply to Q. No. 9, outstation purchases are paid in cheques or banking

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

7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main purchases are from Malpe. The partner has stated that major purchases are from local port Malpe. As stated by him in reply to Q. No. 9, outstation purchases are paid in cheques or banking

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

7 of the statement the partner has stated that raw materials are purchased from various places between the coast of Ratnagiri to Cochin but the main purchases are from Malpe. The partner has stated that major purchases are from local port Malpe. As stated by him in reply to Q. No. 9, outstation purchases are paid in cheques or banking

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

Section 132 of the Act can constitute\nthe basis for passing a block assessment order, notwithstanding the retraction from\nit, by the assessee. The discussion in this behalf reads as under:\n\"8. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the burden of proving the\nundisclosed income is squarely on the shoulders of the Department.\nAcquisition of properties

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

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

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

7. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in affirming the outcome of the LAO's action during remand proceedings which involved a futile exercise of deputing an Income-tax Inspector for a physical inspection of the vendors' premises when this action was already undertaken without any result by the LAO in the course of the scrutiny assessment

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

7. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in affirming the outcome of the LAO's action during remand proceedings which involved a futile exercise of deputing an Income-tax Inspector for a physical inspection of the vendors' premises when this action was already undertaken without any result by the LAO in the course of the scrutiny assessment

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

7. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in affirming the outcome of the LAO's action during remand proceedings which involved a futile exercise of deputing an Income-tax Inspector for a physical inspection of the vendors' premises when this action was already undertaken without any result by the LAO in the course of the scrutiny assessment

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

7. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in affirming the outcome of the LAO's action during remand proceedings which involved a futile exercise of deputing an Income-tax Inspector for a physical inspection of the vendors' premises when this action was already undertaken without any result by the LAO in the course of the scrutiny assessment

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

7,762,500 from the above entity. 52. He submits that all the purchases are accounted for in the books and there is no evidence that assessee has entered purchase of goods without entering the same into the books of accounts. In nutshell when the assessee has not purchased the goods as stated by the assessee, no addition could have

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

7,762,500 from the above entity. 52. He submits that all the purchases are accounted for in the books and there is no evidence that assessee has entered purchase of goods without entering the same into the books of accounts. In nutshell when the assessee has not purchased the goods as stated by the assessee, no addition could have

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

7,762,500 from the above entity. 52. He submits that all the purchases are accounted for in the books and there is no evidence that assessee has entered purchase of goods without entering the same into the books of accounts. In nutshell when the assessee has not purchased the goods as stated by the assessee, no addition could have

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

7,762,500 from the above entity. 52. He submits that all the purchases are accounted for in the books and there is no evidence that assessee has entered purchase of goods without entering the same into the books of accounts. In nutshell when the assessee has not purchased the goods as stated by the assessee, no addition could have

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

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

7. Without further prejudice the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax failed to appreciate that the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 19/12/2019 is subject matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeal}, thus as per the Explanation [c] to sub-section