AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.\nb. Disallowance on Ad-hoc and estimated basis by disallowing 20% of\nAdvertisement and Business Promotion Expenses to the tune of\nRs.24,06,60,000.\nc. Disallowance of expenses incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme\nof Rs.4,00,000.\nd. Addition of loss incurred on sale of assets and provision of doubtful debts

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.\nb. Disallowance on Ad-hoc and estimated basis by disallowing 20% of\nAdvertisement and Business Promotion Expenses to the tune of\nRs.24,06,60,000.\nc. Disallowance of expenses incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme\nof Rs.4,00,000.\nd. Addition of loss incurred on sale of assets and provision of doubtful debts

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.\nb. Disallowance on Ad-hoc and estimated basis by disallowing 20% of\nAdvertisement and Business Promotion Expenses to the tune of\nRs.24,06,60,000.\nc. Disallowance of expenses incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme\nof Rs.4,00,000.\nd. Addition of loss incurred on sale of assets and provision of doubtful debts

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

TDS on such interest payment in\nthe light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance\nof the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue,\nthe assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred\nfor business purposes as well

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

68 oif the Act. In respect of interest payments, there was no evidence produced by the assessee which could be considered in terms of section 37(1) of the Act and assessee has not deducted TDS

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly\nallowed

section 68 has\nnot been fulfilled. The ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Abhisar Buildwell\nreported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).\n7.\nOn the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower\nauthorities and submitted that during the course of appellate\nproceedings

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

TDS on such interest payment in\nthe light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance\nof the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue,\nthe assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred\nfor business purposes as well

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has also been\ndeducted. The assessee has claimed interest as finance\ncost in the profit and loss account which is accepted by\nthe AO. The proof for source of source is not applicable\nin the case of loans which is clear from the section 68

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly\nallowed

section 68 has\nnot been fulfilled. The ld. counsel relied on the judgment of the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Abhisar Buildwell\nreported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC).\n7.\nOn the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower\nauthorities and submitted that during the course of appellate\nproceedings

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22,68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22,68

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of Rs. 391,89,304/- and partly confirmed by CIT (A) to the extent of Rs. 1.5 Crores received from Shri kalro as per Para 25 of the impugned order of CIT (A), Rs. 2 Crores received from M/s Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited as per Para 44 of the impugned order of CIT (A) and Rs. 25 Lacs received

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS made in the form of Form 27A filed by the Appellant are not justified in disallowing Rs.69,11,858/- under section 40(a)(ia). 4. Without prejudice to the above, treating the differential value of VAT of Rs.2,10,250/- as income: 4.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the addition wrongly made

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS