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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

7 in ITA Nos.431-\n435/B/2024(A.Y.2013-14 TO A.Y.2017-18) she submitted that\nno purchase made- So profit element to be determined\n4.5 Further, she submitted that in the statement of the\naccountant, Mr. Mohammed Shareef recorded on 08/02/2018,\nduring the course of survey u/s 133A on M/s Haris Marine Products, the accountant, Mr. Mohammed Shareef, clearly stated\nthat\n“.............Actually

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. 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

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), 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

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

bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income\nduring Searches/Surveys conducted

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

bogus so as to disallow the same and brought to tax as\nundisclosed income of the assessee.\n5.7 Further, there was a CBDT circular file no.286/98/2013-IT\n(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014 which states as under:\n“Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of\nthe CBDT that some assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income\nduring Searches/Surveys conducted

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

GAUGE 16 KITCHEN EQUIPMENTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

7. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that with regard to the proposed addition of the purchases made from Manjunatha Marketing, the assessee had made actual purchases of Rs.5,33,000/- only & not Rs.10,12480/- as alleged by the AO. Further Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee