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 Act conducted on 8.2.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, a statement was recorded from Uday Kumar Salian, one of the partners of the firm. In his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, he confirmed the bogus purchases in these assessment years. There also he offered additional income in these assessment years. That provoked the assessing

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 Act conducted on 8.2.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, a statement was recorded from Uday Kumar Salian, one of the partners of the firm. In his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, he confirmed the bogus purchases in these assessment years. There also he offered additional income in these assessment years. That provoked the assessing

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 Act conducted on 8.2.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, a statement was recorded from Uday Kumar Salian, one of the partners of the firm. In his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, he confirmed the bogus purchases in these assessment years. There also he offered additional income in these assessment years. That provoked the assessing

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 Act conducted on 8.2.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, a statement was recorded from Uday Kumar Salian, one of the partners of the firm. In his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, he confirmed the bogus purchases in these assessment years. There also he offered additional income in these assessment years. That provoked the assessing

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

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

survey has no legs to stand. The assessee via his retraction statement has categorically stated that the declaration was obtained with duress and such statement was not backed by any evidences. The reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act solely emanates from the statement recorded u/s 133A

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

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

survey has no legs to stand. The assessee via his retraction statement has categorically stated that the declaration was obtained with duress and such statement was not backed by any evidences. The reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act solely emanates from the statement recorded u/s 133A

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

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

survey has no legs to stand. The assessee via his retraction statement has categorically stated that the declaration was obtained with duress and such statement was not backed by any evidences. The reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act solely emanates from the statement recorded u/s 133A

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act cannot be used for the purpose of assessment which have no evidential value and any admission mad during the statement recorded on that count itself cannot be basis for addition. On this count also, addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, ground Nos.2 to 2.2 are allowed. 6. Next Ground No.3 of the assessee is with

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of work expenses. It is a trite law that initiation of penalty proceedings should be made by issuance of notice by the ld. AO specifying the allegation to the level of assessee, which is admittedly absent in the instant case and the case made out by the assessee

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

133A and physical inspection of the premises of the new undertaking on 23/02/2006 and statements were also recorded. Order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29/03/2006 restricting the allowance u/s 10B to Rs.85,16,56,168/- as against a claim made by the assessee of Rs.88,82,67,868/- (PB-1 page 6 to 8). In the original return

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

133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki Reddy Venkat Reddy, MD submitted that under oath he declared 8% of turnover as net profit

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

133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki Reddy Venkat Reddy, MD submitted that under oath he declared 8% of turnover as net profit

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

133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki Reddy Venkat Reddy, MD submitted that under oath he declared 8% of turnover as net profit

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

133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki Reddy Venkat Reddy, MD submitted that under oath he declared 8% of turnover as net profit

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

133A conducted by the AO on 27.9.2016, it was found that no regular books of account was maintained and bills & vouchers are not available. On being asked as to why the case of assessee should be subject to special audit, Shri Maki Reddy Venkat Reddy, MD submitted that under oath he declared 8% of turnover as net profit

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act was conducted on 8.2.2018 at the business premises of the assessee and certain documents were impounded during the course of survey. Consequent to the search and seizure u/s 153A, the notices u/s 153C of the Act dated 21.2.2019 were issued by the ld. AO for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. Subsequently, assessment selected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

survey u/s 133A. Thus, the objection on the ground that the material relied upon to initiate proceedings u/s 153A was not found in the premises belonging to the appellant and therefore no proceeding can be initiated u/s 153A is untenable and is therefore rejected. 14. Further the objection that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is defective