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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee’s Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?” (a) In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section 132(4

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

4) Afford the authorised officer necessary facility to look into the electronic\nrecord as provided under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132 ?\n(5) Seized any book of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery,\netc. ?\n(6) Placed any marks of identification, on any books of account, other\ndocuments, etc. ?\n(7) Made a note

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(1) was taken on 07.08.2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorized officer ceased on 07.08.2015. The statement of Smt. Vasudha G. Padiyar recorded under section 131 on 28.09.2015 and the statement of Sri Rangaraju recorded under section 131 on 30.09.2015 by the authorized officer are invalid. Such statements cannot be relied upon as the statements have been

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4

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

68. We have carefully considered the rival contention and the orders of the learned lower authorities. Based on the statement recorded under section 132 (4

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

4) Afford the authorised officer necessary facility to look into the electronic\nrecord as provided under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132 ?\n(5) Seized any book of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery,\netc. ?\n(6) Placed any marks of identification, on any books of account, other\ndocuments, etc. ?\n(7) Made a note

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132(4) of the Act completely ignoring the books of accounts of the Appellant. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,24,17,338/- u/s 68 of the Act and charging tax at the rates prescribed under section