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

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

40A and 438 deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee(firm) will not be entitled to claim deduction for interest payment exceeding 18/12

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2) of the Act treating the same as excessive and unreasonable by relying on the DRP direction rendered for AY 2016- 17. 9. The Ld CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in holding that the Commission payment has been made without any commensurate services rendered, by making surmises without any basis

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2) of the Act treating the same as excessive and unreasonable by relying on the DRP direction rendered for AY 2016- 17. 9. The Ld CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in holding that the Commission payment has been made without any commensurate services rendered, by making surmises without any basis

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 (15) of the Act. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 6 of 15 In the present facts of the case, applicability of principle of merger do not arise since Ld.AO had not considered the issue of expenditure made in cash by assessee and applicability of section 40A (3) of the Act u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 (15) of the Act. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 6 of 15 In the present facts of the case, applicability of principle of merger do not arise since Ld.AO had not considered the issue of expenditure made in cash by assessee and applicability of section 40A (3) of the Act u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A