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

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

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A\non SCDCC Bank, wherein certain documents were found\nand seized. Based on the said documents, it was detected\nthat the Assessee has received a cash component on sale\nof its Projects viz., Micasa, Ventura, Primero and Padavu,\nwhich has escaped the assessment. Accordingly, the case\nwas reopened under section 147 and notice under section\n148 was issued

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A\non SCDCC Bank, wherein certain documents were found\nand seized. Based on the said documents, it was detected\nthat the Assessee has received a cash component on sale\nof its Projects viz., Micasa, Ventura, Primero and Padavu,\nwhich has escaped the assessment. Accordingly, the\ncase was reopened under section 147 and notice under section\n148 was issued

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

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

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

133A on M/s Haris Marine Products, the accountant, Mr. Mohammed Shareef, clearly stated\nthat\n“.............Actually no raw fish/fish meal was purchased by them\nand these entries are bogus and it is being entered purely under the\ndirections of Sri K. Mohammad Haris, MD of M/s Mukka seafood Industries\nPvt. Ltd. (Emphasis supplied)\n(1)\nSri K. Mohammed Haris, Director

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was also\nconducted at the headquarter of the South Canara\nDistrict Credit Co-operative Bank Limited (in short\nSCDCC Bank) on 27.12.2016, wherein Mr. M.N.\nRajendra Kumar is the Chairman and he has made a\nsworn statement.\n7.4 Consequent to the search and seizure operation on\nMr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar, and survey under

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was also\nconducted at the headquarter of the South Canara\nDistrict Credit Co-operative Bank Limited (in short\nSCDCC Bank) on 27.12.2016, wherein Mr. M.N.\nRajendra Kumar is the Chairman and he has made a\nsworn statement.\n7.4 Consequent to the search and seizure operation on\nMr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar, and survey under

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was also\nconducted at the headquarter of the South Canara\nDistrict Credit Co-operative Bank Limited (in short\nSCDCC Bank) on 27.12.2016, wherein Mr. M.N.\nRajendra Kumar is the Chairman and he has made a\nsworn statement.\n\n7.4 Consequent to the search and seizure operation on\nMr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar, and survey

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

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

survey operations, it is undisputedly clear that the lower authorities have not collected any other evidence to prove that the impugned income was earned by the assessee. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 8.5 At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (2009) (233) ELT 157 observed as under

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

survey operations, it is undisputedly clear that the lower authorities have not collected any other evidence to prove that the impugned income was earned by the assessee. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 8.5 At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (2009) (233) ELT 157 observed as under

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 133(6) of the Act to him (MD of Avexa) but he neither responded nor appeared before the AO. - The cross examination would not have brought any new facts other than what is available on record. - The claim of the assessee that M/s Avexa carried subcontract work but no documents showing the nature and detail of expenditure incurred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

u/s 133(6) of the Act to\nhim (MD of Avexa) but he neither responded nor appeared before\nthe AO.\n- The cross examination would not have brought any new facts other\nthan what is available on record.\n- The claim of the assessee that M/s Avexa carried subcontract work\nbut no documents showing the nature and detail of expenditure