M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\n\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\n\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\n\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\n\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

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

40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia). 2. The appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the order under section 250 of the Act was passed 11.12.2023 dismissing the appeal filed. 3. The appellant submits that it has created multiple mail id’s over a period of time, such as secmysore@dataone.in, mrcacct@gmail.com, mysoreraces@gmail.com, accounts@mysoreraceclub.com

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

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

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

40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia). 2. The appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the order under section 250 of the Act was passed 11.12.2023 dismissing the appeal filed. 3. The appellant submits that it has created multiple mail id’s over a period of time, such as secmysore@dataone.in, mrcacct@gmail.com, mysoreraces@gmail.com, accounts@mysoreraceclub.com

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs. 17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs. 20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs. 23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs. 63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs. 70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

40A(3) of Rs.94,40,000 and completed the assessment on 26.11.2022. 3. Against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) ON 14.2.2023 belatedly by 111 days. The assessee filed reasons for condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed as per section

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. The fact is that the transaction itself was held as bogus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the transaction was genuine and legal is devoid of ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 8 of 55 any objective basis. The details

SRI. T. SHIVAKUMAR,DAVANGERE vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

3 caused due to wrong advise received by the assessee from Shri. B. P. Vikay Kumar, ITP. Delay was not attributable to any failure of the assessee. Ld. DR has not stated why the affidavit filed by Shri. B. P. Vijaykumar, should be disbelieved. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the delay has to be condoned

M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

SHRI. SANTOSH M. BHANDARI,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeal.” The appeal is therefore held to be filed within time. 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, at the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for adjudication of ground Nos. 2 & 3 in the grounds of appeal which in relation to disallowance of 3

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

condonation of delay which is as under: “The abovenamed appellant/petitioner most respectfully submits as follows: 1. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 27.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited

MR. CHITHAPPA KARTHIK YADAV,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 40A (3) of the Act, 3 Sri Chithappa Karthik Yadav. without appreciating the fact that the payments are made to various persons on different dates. 23. Without prejudice, the learned AO at the most ought to have levied penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts and / or for non-filing of Form 3CD within the stipulated time. Instead