MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's. 2.5 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the extract of the accounts as shown at pages [15 & 16] of the assessment order is erroneous and quite different from the actual account copy of the appellant in the books of the company and he ought

MICROFINISH VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Rs.3,30,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) - Rs. 8,18,734/- (iii) Disallowance under section 43B - Rs. 25,461/- (iv) Capitalisation of Expenditure claimed as repairs - Rs. 14,20,430/- (v) Disallowance of interest relating to WIP - Rs. 4,97,738/- (vi) Difference in receipts as per 26AS

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds

SURESH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ACIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). It is evident from the Balance Sheet of Shejawadkar Builders Pvt Ltd, that the Company is not having accumulated profit as per the provisions u/s 2(22)(e). As per the Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2011, the accumulated profit before depreciation

M/S BELLAD & COMPANY,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

depreciation at 10%. He also made addition of Rs.29,02,161/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The AO also

ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI vs. M/S BELLAD & CO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

depreciation at 10%. He also made addition of Rs.29,02,161/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The AO also

GIRISH APPA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. George

depreciation for the declaration of dividend. Similar Analogy is to be applied for deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is our humble

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which is extracted hereunder :- “ 3.16 The facts narrated above, it is apportionate to examine the merit of the issue as below :- i) The appellant furnished a copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 and from it statement of account for the financial year 2008-09 disclosed as under :- BHUWALKA SALES

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee in the return filed in response to notice 153A has filed the return with the adjustments now challenged. 9. Ground Nos.1 & 5 are general in nature not warranting separate adjudication hence dismissed. Ground no.4 is consequential. Ground

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee in the return filed in response to notice 153A has filed the return with the adjustments now challenged. 9. Ground Nos.1 & 5 are general in nature not warranting separate adjudication hence dismissed. Ground no.4 is consequential. Ground

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee in the return filed in response to notice 153A has filed the return with the adjustments now challenged. 9. Ground Nos.1 & 5 are general in nature not warranting separate adjudication hence dismissed. Ground no.4 is consequential. Ground

CHINNASWAMY SUNDER RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act., accordingly he disallowed the setoff of Loss claimed of Rs. 118,24,27,640/-. Further the AO disallowed the Long Term capital Gain of Rs. 13,90,558/- and deemed dividend