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

survey and the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial

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

survey and the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial

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

survey and the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial

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

survey and the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial

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. 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 dt. 03/06/2003

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

transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they are not documents on the basis of which jurisdiction can be assumed by the AO under Section 153C

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

price absolutely without any basis and had arrived at an imaginary figure without any basis and therefore the impugned orders is liable to be set aside on this ground also. (7) The learned respondent also seriously erred in not considering the various statutory documents like granting of Khata on the property, releasing the original Joint Development Agreement by the Registering

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

133A carried out on 12/02/2020, the Assessee Firm revised the Return of Income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 03/03/2020 wherein, it had claimed the cost of the purchase of the said land along with shed on 30/12/2003 for a cost of Rs.2,20,23,255/-, the index cost thereon of Rs.5,65,73,499/- and claimed the indexed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they are not documents on the basis of which jurisdiction can be assumed by the AO under Section 153C

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file a return of income within 5 days from date of issue of notice. Due to the paucity of time allowed in notice under section

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the Factory premises at Sasihitlu and Godown at Baikampady on 08/02/2018. 2.3 During the course of search, statement was recorded u/s. 132[4] of the Act of the Managing Director of the assessee, wherein the Managing Director admitted certain additional income on account of alleged bogus purchases and additional income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

133A on SCDCC Bank, wherein certain documents were found and seized. Based on the said documents, it was detected that the Assessee has received a cash component on sale of its Projects viz., Micasa, Ventura, Primero and Padavu, which has escaped the assessment. Accordingly, the case was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

133A on SCDCC Bank, wherein certain documents were found and seized. Based on the said documents, it was detected that the Assessee has received a cash component on sale of its Projects viz., Micasa, Ventura, Primero and Padavu, which has escaped the assessment. Accordingly, the case was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued

TERRIER SECURITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

133A of the Act was conducted by the Office of the DCIT (Inv.), Unit 1(2), Bangalore in assessee’s case on 8.7.2021 and that during the course of survey proceedings, evidence regarding wrong claim of deduction u/s. 80JJA of the Act by the assessee was found. The PCIT therefore issues a show cause notice to the assessee

TERRIER SECURITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

133A of the Act was conducted by the Office of the DCIT (Inv.), Unit 1(2), Bangalore in assessee’s case on 8.7.2021 and that during the course of survey proceedings, evidence regarding wrong claim of deduction u/s. 80JJA of the Act by the assessee was found. The PCIT therefore issues a show cause notice to the assessee

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

price being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such finding. The issue is not whether the purchase price reflected in the books of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the assessee is reflected as receipts by the recipients

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was also conducted at the headquarter of the South Canara District Credit Co-operative Bank Limited (in short SCDCC Bank) on 27.12.2016, wherein Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar is the Chairman and he has made a sworn statement. 7.4 Consequent to the search and seizure operation on Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar, and survey under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS & IMPORTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

price and in the event if M/s Manar Developers (P) Ltd. failed to pay, the appellant company had a right to purchase 9 flats in the property for recovery of dues. The appellant states that this was not acceptable & hence the appellant company did not proceeded further with it. It was submitted that the appellant had not affixed signature

RAJARATHNAM'S JEWELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

133A. Page 7 of 24 14. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice dated 02.05.2013 informing the Assessee that a special audit of accounts of the Assessee has to be carried out u/s 142(2A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee by letters dated 11.5.2013 submitted revised unaudited financial statements