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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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

96,670/- respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, on the basis of findings of the search conducted in the assessee's premises and subsequent enquiries, according to the AO the purchases made in the name of three concerns, as detailed below, were non-genuine: Name of the Purchase made for the Purchase made for the concern

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

96,670/- respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, on the basis of findings of the search conducted in the assessee's premises and subsequent enquiries, according to the AO the purchases made in the name of three concerns, as detailed below, were non-genuine: Name of the Purchase made for the Purchase made for the concern

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

96,555/- to purchase the lands in their names. The Trust/ the Authorized representative has not given any explanation with respect to the resulting unutilized amount of Rs 24,34,64,158/-. 3.16 The above mentioned payments made during F.Y.2014-15 to 2021-22 by the assessee trust Lowards purchase/advance for land in the name of the trustees have neither been

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

LAKSHMANRAM BHEEMAJI PUROHIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

section under which the addition/ disallowance is made. With respect to the details of purchases, it was submitted that the supplier had GST No. and the address of supplier was provided. The assessee also provided the details of purchases. It was submitted that all these purchases have been made in cash. The assessee also objected that these are not bogus

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

purchases of Molasses at Chitali Unit, by entering accommodation\nentries in our books against the bogus bills from contractors, transport providers. Entities\nsuch as Om Chemicals, Shivam Bulk provide us accommodation entries. Through Shri.\nAshok Khurade and Shri. Amol Khurade we get bogus contractors bills. These cash that is\ngenerated are routed back to Bangalore through our cars. This

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

bogus purchase and inflated transport expenses (c) The additional ground is that there is no transaction with the said contractors during the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence no addition called for in these assessment years. 18.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment