CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

139(1) of the Act and therefore the assessee is not entitled for set off as per section 80 of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that the losses pertain to A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 was not determined since the return for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed belatedly and therefore the assessee is not entitled

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)

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

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.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\n\nThus, the facts

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

disallowance, and under the circumstances, the addition under Sec.40A(3) itself deserves to be deleted.” 2. It is respectfully submitted that the failure to adopt these grounds in the original appeal filed was neither deliberate nor wilful. It is also submitted that the additional grounds adduced herewith go to the root of the matter and no new facts are being

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

disallowance, and under the circumstances, the addition under Sec.40A(3) itself deserves to be deleted.” 2. It is respectfully submitted that the failure to adopt these grounds in the original appeal filed was neither deliberate nor wilful. It is also submitted that the additional grounds adduced herewith go to the root of the matter and no new facts are being

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

disallowance, and under the circumstances, the addition under Sec.40A(3) itself deserves to be deleted.” 2. It is respectfully submitted that the failure to adopt these grounds in the original appeal filed was neither deliberate nor wilful. It is also submitted that the additional grounds adduced herewith go to the root of the matter and no new facts are being

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

3 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n4.5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section_14A_r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n4.6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3:\nRegarding the disallowance of Rs. 72,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia), the\nappellant has filed some documents which were reportedly filed before the\nassessing officer during the assessment proceedings:\nA perusal of these documents do not establish beyond doubt that TDS of Rs.\n24,000/- was deducted on professional fees of Rs. 2,40,000/- paid

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

139 of the Act and the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 does not get abated since notice under Section 143(2) was issued and time to issue such a notice had expired. 9. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance made u/s. 40A(3

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance under section 14 A of the act to the extent of ₹ 6,452,727/–. xxii. On 22 October 2018 , the principal Commissioner of income tax issued a notice under section 263 of the act to the appellant which was responded to on 3 December 2018. The learned PCIT passed an order under section 263 of the act on 28th

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

3. Aggrieved by the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act, amounting to Rs.15,00,698/-, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that assessee has not filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) of the Act, adopted the total income computed in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. By doing so, the AO has effectively incorporated the disallowance into the assessment order. Therefore, the assessee is justified in raising the ground of appeal . IT(TP)A No.1539/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 37 against the said disallowance before the appellate