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 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling

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 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

145A of the I.T. Act. The first respondent - Income Tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in refusing to grant a certificate under section 197 of the I.T. Act to the petitioner for non- deduction of tax at source, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax under the head "income from other sources" on the interest paid

M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A

M/S. KLUBER LUBRICATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

145A of the Act cannot be adopted while determining the rate of tax in pursuance to First schedule of Finance (No. 2) Act 2019 based on turnover. However, we keep this issue open and are not inclined to adjudicate at this juncture whether to include or exclude the amount of excise duty from the amount of turnover on the issue

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

145A of the Act provides that the valuation of inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' shall be in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 5.1. The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

145A of the Act provides that the valuation of inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' shall be in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 5.1. The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

disallowed such provision for stock obsolescence on the ground that there is no such deduction available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that section 145A

MR.NANJUNDA RENUKA ARADHYA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

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

disallowed, though it was not charged to the P&L account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the provisions of section 145A

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

section 145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

section 145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

section 145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

section 145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A

M/S KEN CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

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

disallowed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has maintained the service tax account as a Balance sheet item, i.e, it did not route through the collection and payments of service tax through the profit & loss account. Hence the assessee has not claimed any deduction towards service tax liability