SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

TDS thereon, the details of assessee’s Fixed Deposit with Canara Bank. The rate of interest paid by the assessee to the unsecured loan creditors is in the range of 9%, 12% and 15%. In our considered view, for the authorities below to invoke the provisions of section 40A(2)(b

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

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

B\" BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nITA Nos.1199, 1200/Bang/2025\n Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15\n\nM/s. Texo The Builders,\n6-49 Sunder Leela, Bommarabettu Village,\nHiriadka, Udupi – 576 113.\nPAN: AAFFT 0780 M\n\nVs.\n\nACIT,\nCentral Circle – 2,\nMangalore.\n\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\n\nAssessee by : Shri. Sandeep

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1199, 1200/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 M/s. Texo The Builders, Vs. ACIT, 6-49 Sunder Leela, Bommarabettu Village, Central Circle – 2, Hiriadka, Udupi – 576 113. Mangalore. PAN : AAFFT 0780 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

BANGALORE BEVERAGES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In view of ITA Nos.438/Bang/2018 & 294/Bang/2019 M/s. Bangalore Beverages Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 24 the above discussion, we dismiss this ground in both the appeals of the assessee. 7. Next ground in ITA No.438/Bang/2018 in assessment year 2013-14 is with regard to addition towards consultancy fee of Rs.60

M/S BANGALORE BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In view of ITA Nos.438/Bang/2018 & 294/Bang/2019 M/s. Bangalore Beverages Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 24 the above discussion, we dismiss this ground in both the appeals of the assessee. 7. Next ground in ITA No.438/Bang/2018 in assessment year 2013-14 is with regard to addition towards consultancy fee of Rs.60

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

b) where the same person or enterprise holds directly or indirectly, shares carrying not less than 26% of the voting power in each of such enterprise, is also not present. Further, it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of section 92A. A plain reading of this statutory provision makes the legal position quite clear. The, basic rule for treating

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1533, 9Th Main, Range - 5,Bengaluru. 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aacck 7678 R Assesseee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. Tshering Ongda, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 19.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.1.2021 O R D E R

40A(2)(b) of the Act and the issue sought to be raised in grounds 9 to 12 with regard to the question whether interest expenditure of Rs.1,90,06,180/- crystallized as an liability to the assessee during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12 requires fresh consideration by the AO in the light of the additional

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

40A(2) of the Act. IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 33 of 84 Corporate tax issues 34. The next ground for consideration is regarding depreciation on goodwill on the following grounds raised by the assessee:- “Grounds relating to Depreciation on Goodwill: 3.1 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing Depreciation of INR 2

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was liable for disallowance. 18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under section 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also independently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, no double addition

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.613 & 614/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shri H.Nagaraja, No.6 & 7, 5th Cross, ‘Sri Ganesh Krupa’ New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bengaluru-560062. … Appellant PAN:ABMPN 7731 L Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka (Central), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.V.Seshachala, Advocate. Respondent

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DYDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the Appellant to be an 'assessee-in-default' under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act on IUC and capacity

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DYDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the Appellant to be an 'assessee-in-default' under section 201 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act on IUC and capacity