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

133A of the Income tax Act 1961 was conducted on 08.02.2018 in the case the appellant. In the statement u/s 131 recorded, the ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 43 of 85 partner of the firm admitted additional income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 for this year. The appellant had sought

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

133A of the Income tax Act 1961 was conducted on 08.02.2018 in the case the appellant. In the statement u/s 131 recorded, the ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 43 of 85 partner of the firm admitted additional income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 for this year. The appellant had sought

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

133A of the Income tax Act 1961 was conducted on 08.02.2018 in the case the appellant. In the statement u/s 131 recorded, the ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 43 of 85 partner of the firm admitted additional income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 for this year. The appellant had sought

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

133A of the Income tax Act 1961 was conducted on 08.02.2018 in the case the appellant. In the statement u/s 131 recorded, the ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 43 of 85 partner of the firm admitted additional income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 for this year. The appellant had sought

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance (if any) has to be made in the year the expenses have been claimed. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 13,88,76,800 was upheld on substantive basis. Findings:- 7. In this case, there was survey u/s 133A

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

survey u/s 133A and physical inspection of the premises of the new undertaking on 23/02/2006 and statements were also recorded. In the original return the assessee had made a claim for deduction u/s 10B in respect of the undertaking known as M/s Bharat Mines & Minerals which was established in pursuance of the legal agreement executed with Development Commissioner of CSEZ

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance of Rs.4,45,900/-. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Regarding the additional ground, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order is void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction as per 147 of the Act. 5.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Survey was conducted u/s 133A

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance of Rs.4,45,900/-. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Regarding the additional ground, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order is void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction as per 147 of the Act. 5.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Survey was conducted u/s 133A

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance of Rs.4,45,900/-. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Regarding the additional ground, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order is void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction as per 147 of the Act. 5.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Survey was conducted u/s 133A

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 12.12.2017. During the course of survey, various incriminating material including books of accounts and documents were found and impounded. Subsequently, the case was selected for reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 07.02.2020. 1.3. Subsequently the assessment proceedings

DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI, C.R. BUILDING , NAVANAGAR HUBLI vs. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR KOMMI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance of Rs.2 lakhs against expenses claimed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Act against the additional income offered to tax in the return which was surrendered during the course of survey u/s 133A

SRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDSHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2006-07

133A conducted on 01.03.2011, certain incriminating documents, diaries were found and impounded as per the Page 2 of 13 Inventory of Books of Account/Documents drawn during the survey on 01/03/2011. On verification of the entries made in the impounded diaries, the Assessing Officer observed that receipts and payments as recorded in the impounded diary for the months of January

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

u/s. 133A, the Learned Assessing Officer had referred to some of the payment vouchers obtained by him during the course of the survey proceedings wherein, payments in excess of the limits specified u/s.40A(3) i.e. Rs. 35,000/- per day were made to the same person in the aggregate against different vouchers in the same day to allege that there

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

u/s. 133A, the Learned Assessing Officer had referred to some of the payment vouchers obtained by him during the course of the survey proceedings wherein, payments in excess of the limits specified u/s.40A(3) i.e. Rs. 35,000/- per day were made to the same person in the aggregate against different vouchers in the same day to allege that there

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

u/s. 133A, the Learned Assessing Officer had referred to some of the payment vouchers obtained by him during the course of the survey proceedings wherein, payments in excess of the limits specified u/s.40A(3) i.e. Rs. 35,000/- per day were made to the same person in the aggregate against different vouchers in the same day to allege that there

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition made by the AO by 30,29,263/- way of causing disallowance

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition made by the AO by 30,29,263/- way of causing disallowance

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition made by the AO by 30,29,263/- way of causing disallowance

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the addition made by the AO by 30,29,263/- way of causing disallowance