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

Section 133A of one third party labelling contractor.\n14.5.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\naddition of Rs.26,14,691/- on an erroneous presumption\nthat the Appellant was inflating the labelling wages\nwithout appreciating the fact that the alleged inflations, if\nany, were made by third-party labelling contractors.\n14.6. The Learned AO erred in making

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)

Section 133A of one third party labelling contractor.\n14.5.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\naddition of Rs.26,14,691/- on an erroneous presumption\nthat the Appellant was inflating the labelling wages\nwithout appreciating the fact that the alleged inflations, if\nany, were made by third-party labelling contractors.\n14. 6. The Learned AO erred in making

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.

Section 133A of one third party labelling contractor.\n14. 5. The Learned AO was not justified in making the\naddition of Rs.26,14,691/- on an erroneous presumption\nthat the Appellant was inflating the labelling wages\nwithout appreciating the fact that the alleged inflations, if\nany, were made by third-party labelling contractors.\n14. 6. The Learned AO erred

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

Section 133A of one third party labelling contractor.\n\n14.5.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\naddition of Rs.26,14,691/- on an erroneous presumption\nthat the Appellant was inflating the labelling wages\nwithout appreciating the fact that the alleged inflations, if\nany, were made by third-party labelling contractors.\n\n14. 6. The Learned AO erred

CHOKKANAHALLI GUNDAPPA CHANDRAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 133A of the Act on 27.02.2019 i.e. during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18. During the course of survey, the assessee was asked to furnish the documentary evidences with respect to the work done by the sub-contractors along with Bills/Vouchers raised & proof of payment done towards the sub-contractors. The assessee submitted

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

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

section 154 of the Act and the AO passed Order on 10.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in ITA Nos.1199, 1200/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 28 which amount was not allowed in OGE were confirmed and rejected the rectification petition filed by the assessee. 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed

CHOKKANAHALLI GUNDAPPA CHANDRAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result both these appeals filed by the\nassessee are allowed

disallowed the expenses based on statements recorded during a survey, which were later retracted by the parties, and alleged that the sub-contractors were actually employees. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey under section 133A

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 2,75,00,00/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act without properly appreciating

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 2,75,00,00/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act without properly appreciating

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 2,75,00,00/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-made by the learned assessing officer under Section 68 of the Act without properly appreciating

TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

section\n37(1) of the Act but he has made addition under section 40A(3) of the Act\nbecause assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under the above\nsection. AO examined and found that payment of Rs.29,27,555/- does not\nsatisfy the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act r.w.r.6DD(j). We have\ngone through

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances of purchases from M/s Ratan Trading Co. to the extent of Rs. 9,17,41,460/- only. 39.1 The necessary facts are that subsequent to search proceedings at the premises of the assessee on 7th October 2021, a survey proceeding under section 133A

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 133A would not automatically bind upon the assessee. Therefore, admission made during such statement cannot be made the basis of any admission.” 14.1 The same view has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement cited (supra). We are in full agreement with the above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the M/s. Expat

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5. decisions, which are squarely applicable to appellant's case. 1. M.K. Agrotech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (109 Taxmann.com

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5. decisions, which are squarely applicable to appellant's case. 1. M.K. Agrotech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (109 Taxmann.com

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5. decisions, which are squarely applicable to appellant's case. 1. M.K. Agrotech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (109 Taxmann.com

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

133A of the Act. Therefore, the survey conducted is part and parcel of the search proceedings and various incriminating materials were also found. There is a difference in the physical cash balance found from the actual books of accounts. This also shows that there is incriminating document found. Therefore, the AO has correctly issued notice under section 153A

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

133A of the Act. Therefore, the survey conducted is part and parcel of the search proceedings and various incriminating materials were also found. There is a difference in the physical cash balance found from the actual books of accounts. This also shows that there is incriminating document found. Therefore, the AO has correctly issued notice under section 153A