M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

10. Without prejudice, the Learned AO could have\nmade addition of income only to the extent of alleged\ninflation of Rs.1,97,021/- made by Mr. Ashok Shenoy,\nmanager of M/s. Shenoy & Co.\n15. As regards disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

disallows certain expenditure\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincome which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the tax. It is equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out, in order to attract applicability of section 14-A of the Act, there\nhas

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

10. Without prejudice, the Learned AO could have\nmade addition of income only to the extent of alleged\ninflation of Rs.1,97,021/- made by Mr. Ashok Shenoy,\nmanager of M/s. Shenoy & Co.\n\n15. As regards disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

III, cannot be countenanced.' 34. We are of the considered opinion that the above referred decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Aravind do not cover the cases under Sections 10-A and 10-B of the Act which are special provisions and complete code in themselves and deal with profits and gains derived

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

10% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited are not to be considered for computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the same being for strategic investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

10% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited are not to be considered for computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the same being for strategic investment

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5.\nAs regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

iii] of the Act of Rs. 99,02,829/- being the interest paid on capital borrowed and used for purposes of business under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.7,10,500/- M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

10,92,957 in relation to income on which deduction under section 10AA was claimed) once the dispute is settled 5. Levy of interest under section 234B: 5.1. The levy of interest under section 234B is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Prayer: 6.1. Based on the above grounds and other grounds adduced at the time

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

10-11 of the judgment).\n\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nPage 3 of 22\n5. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the\norder of CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order\nto be restored.\n6. The appellant craves to amend or alter any grounds of appeal\nor add the same, if deemed necessary.\n4. Brief facts of the case