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 under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\n\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\nPage

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.”\nPage

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

disallowance of “building under construction” expenses—\nwere made contrary to the facts on record, showing that even the\napproving authority had not noticed the basic accounting treatment.\n\n17.7 The ld. AR relied on several judicial precedents to support his\nargument that mechanical approval under section 153D

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

disallowance of “building under construction” expenses—\nwere made contrary to the facts on record, showing that even the\napproving authority had not noticed the basic accounting treatment.\n17.7 The ld. AR relied on several judicial precedents to support his\nargument that mechanical approval under section 153D

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed\nas infructuous

153D of the Act.\n53.1 At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee on\nmerit of the case has been decided in its favour. Accordingly, we do not\nfind any reason to adjudicate the impugned issue on hand. As such, we\nkeep the issue open. Both the Id. AR and the DR did not raise

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

section 153D of the Act\npresupposes the application of mind by the Additional\nCommissioner which is not discernible from the order of\nassessment on the facts of the case.\nc) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prior\napproval of the Additional Commissioner could not have\nbeen obtained by the assessing officer as the assessment\norder was passed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 153D of the Act presupposes the application of mind by the Additional Commissioner which is not discernible from the order of assessment on the facts of the case. c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner could not have been obtained by the assessing officer as the assessment order was passed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 153D of the Act presupposes the application of mind by the Additional Commissioner which is not discernible from the order of assessment on the facts of the case. c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner could not have been obtained by the assessing officer as the assessment order was passed

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 153D of the Act presupposes the application of mind by the Additional Commissioner which is not discernible from the order of assessment on the facts of the case. c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner could not have been obtained by the assessing officer as the assessment order was passed

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowances, not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 2. The assessment order passed under section 153A is illegal and bad in law as it has been passed in breach of section 153D

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowances, not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 2. The assessment order passed under section 153A is illegal and bad in law as it has been passed in breach of section 153D

M/S MSPL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowances, not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 2. The assessment order passed under section 153A is illegal and bad in law as it has been passed in breach of section 153D

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

153D of the act under the impugned order on the ground that: - A) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C to assume valid the jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C of the act. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

153D\nof the act under the impugned order on the ground that: -\nA) the learned assessing officer has not discharged the\nburden of proving that there is a valid initiation of\nproceedings under section 153C to assume valid the\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153C\nof the act.\nPage 24 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024

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

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023