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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. Since we have already held that the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act to be infirm and the proceedings and subsequent impugned order of assessment passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

3. Learned counsel for the assessee, has a three-fold submission. His first plea is that in the light of law laid down by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd Vs K S Pathania [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom)]the scope of prima facie disallowance under section 143

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

3. Learned counsel for the assessee, has a three-fold submission. His first plea is that in the light of law laid down by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd Vs K S Pathania [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom)]the scope of prima facie disallowance under section 143

ARECA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Areca Trust, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), No.23, Nadathur Place, 8Th Main, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Vs. Delhi. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aafta 7784 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

section 143(3) of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was no inconsistency between various schedules of the Income-tax Return, hence disallowance

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer, which is not permissible in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned order of assessments passed by the learned assessing officer under section 153 A r.w.s. 143[3

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The Id. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing the\nbusiness expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id. CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the same

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)

3) dated 29.11.2021 are bad and 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) and applicable board\ncirculars and instructions.\n4. As regards disallowance

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) addition of Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. Rs.15,98,331/- on account of contribution of PF and ESI were made to the total income. The issue involved in the ground of appeal is disallowance of Rs.15,98,331/- for contribution to PF and ESI. 3

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) addition of Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. Rs.15,98,331/- on account of contribution of PF and ESI were made to the total income. The issue involved in the ground of appeal is disallowance of Rs.15,98,331/- for contribution to PF and ESI. 3

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment to the section 36(1)(va) was prospective from the AY 2022-23 and the_ disallowance ought

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment to the section 36(1)(va) was prospective from the AY 2022-23 and the_ disallowance ought