SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

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 was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3)” in the said notice.\n15. 5. The Learned AO erred in perversely converting\nthe offer of Rs.17,92,25,000/- under section 40A(3)\nextracted from the Appellant during search proceedings\nunder coercion into a case of “improper documentation or\nnon

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

disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was deleted due to lack of proper verification, opportunity, and examination of exceptions.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40(a)(ia)", "40A(3)", "37(1)", "194J", "142

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

disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3)” in the said notice.\n\n15. 5. The Learned AO erred in perversely converting\nthe offer of Rs.17,92,25,000/- under section 40A(3)\nextracted from the Appellant during search proceedings\nunder coercion into a case of “improper documentation

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

disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3)” in the said notice.\n15.5. The Learned AO erred in perversely converting\nthe offer of Rs.17,92,25,000/- under section 40A(3)\nextracted from the Appellant during search proceedings\nunder coercion into a case of “improper documentation or\nnon-production

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

142 (1) on 18 December 2019 but no notice under section 143 (2) was issued. The The DCIT V G Corp P Ltd AY 14-15 Page 6 of 14 assessee contended before him and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in case of Hotel blue moon (supra) and submitted that the assessment order needs

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

142(1) were issued. Thereafter, the assessee had suomoto offered a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs as his Page 3 of 14 unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO stated that the assessee had made a claim of setting off of brought forward losses of Rs. 45,18,838/- which was originally accepted by the CPC while processing

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

142(1) dt. 10/07/2012, 29/08/2012, 05/10/2012 & 19/12/2012 were issued seeking several details which was duly filed by the assessee. The assessment came to be concluded u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) on 11/03/2013 disallowing already allowed claim of Rs. 85,16,56,168/- and determining the total income at Rs.131,01,19,435/-. The reasons for withdrawal of the section

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

disallowance on the ground that the adjustment originated from the CPC’s intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and not as a variation proposed by the AO under section 144C(1) of the Act. The learned DRP held that it lacks jurisdiction over such matters and relied on the decision . IT(TP)A No.1539/Bang/2024 Page

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

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

142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details and assessment was concluded as ex-parte under section 144 ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru Page 4 of 13 r.w.s.147, vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs.47,33,332/- as disallowance made under section 40A(3

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and that the provisions of section 139(5) are not applicable to a revised return where loss is claimed. Besides the above, the CIT(Appeals) also held that the issue was debatable and cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from the record. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance. The assessee being aggrieved by the said assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.11.2017 served on the assessee on 28.12.2017 preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 25.01.2018. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) issued hearing notices under section 250 of the Act dated

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

disallow the claim under section 80G of the Act, in respect of CSR contributions. 6.4 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law by disregarding the fact that the deductions claimed under section 80G of the Act pertained to eligible payments specified under section 80G of the Act. 6.5 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have

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

3. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the brand building expenditure incurred by the assessee the expenditure cannot be considered as a revenue expenditure since it indirectly gives the assessee benefit for a long run. 4. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

142 CTR (MP) 562 : (1997) 228 ITR 680 (MP), a sum of Rs. 48,850 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallow export commission expense amounting to INR 4,17,10,537 and commission paid for hiring of apartments ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 45 amounting INR 1,11,111 paid to non-resident parties under section 40(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating that such payments were not taxable in India