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

4) of the Act. However, this statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations, empower the AO to frame the block assessment.” [Emphasis in bold and underline supplied] (vii) Honourable Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Arihant Universal Realty (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT( ITA NO. 4342/2017 dated 05.04.2022 ) held as under

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

disallowing the expenditure pertaining to other entities in the hands of the Appellant without making a prima facie analysis of whether the Appellant is a party to the transaction or not. 8.6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs.6,35,10,000 as interest on Rs.43,80,00,000 considering

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

172 of the PB] The said submission was not accepted and AO disallowed Rs. 12,63,443 under section, 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii). The said disallowance was appealed before the CIT(A).- CIT(A) proceedings: M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 25 of 29 6.3 Aggrieved by 'the said disallowance, the Assessee made the following submissions before

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,59,00,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) was factually incorrect. 51. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that there were recovered incriminating documents evidencing the impugned loan entries represent bogus transaction. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

section 132(4) carry strong evidentiary value, and\nretractions must be immediate and supported by proof of coercion or\nmistake. In this case, the assessee has not discharged his burden of\nproof to show that the admission was involuntary or incorrect. In\nsupport the AO placed reliance on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 132(4) of the Act on\n25.11.2016.From the statement of Devineni Venkatesulu, as per question No.\n12,the search team identified list of 11 sub-contractors. As per statement of\n\nSri Rajagopal M. s/o M. Seshaiah Naidu at Bangalore Office recorded on\n25.11.2016, additional 16 sub-contractors were identified as per Q.10 of his\nstatement. Hence