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

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report

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

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

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 under Section 14A u/s Rule\n8D(2)(ii

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

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

143[3] of the Act, the said impugned assessment have been concluded by the learned assessing officer not based on any incriminating documents or materials seized during the course of search and as such there are no additions to the effect of any undisclosed income based on any alleged seized documents or materials. 10.15 In view of the above submissions

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to the file of the AO with similar directions as rendered by the Tribunal in its orders for the earlier Assessment Years 2008-09. 2.3.2 In the set aside proceedings, the AO passed the order of assessment under section 143(3

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to the file of the AO with similar directions as rendered by the Tribunal in its orders for the earlier Assessment Years 2008-09. 2.3.2 In the set aside proceedings, the AO passed the order of assessment under section 143(3

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to the file of the AO with similar directions as rendered by the Tribunal in its orders for the earlier Assessment Years 2008-09. 2.3.2 In the set aside proceedings, the AO passed the order of assessment under section 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

disallowed expenditure debit in its\nbook. The AO through recording the statements had established the\nmodus apparendi in the case wherein the bank accounts were\nopened in the names of the parties and cheques deposited but\nagain withdrawn in cash and nothing contrary brought on record by\nthe assessee during the assessment or appellate proceedings. The\nother two were