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)

section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/:\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial statements

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

14,691/-\nd) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs. 53,61,903/-\n6.\nInsofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing the quantum of purchases of tendu leaves for want of\ndocumentation – Rs. 1,55,45,376/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s. 145A

KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

14-12-2018 wherein the deduction claimed under section\n80P of the Act was disallowed and income was assessed at Rs.\n11,64,663/- only. Against the said assessment, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before the learned CIT(A).\n3.1\nSubsequently, the order under section 263 of the Act was passed\nproposing to disallow/assess interest expenses/provision

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\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/-\n14. 1. The impugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial statements

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5.\nAs regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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 of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/ :-\n\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\n\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

disallowed the deduction under\nSection 80P(2)(a)(i) holding that the appellant/assessee is neither a\nprimary agricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative\nagricultural and rural development bank. The Ld.AO therein held\nthat the appellant/assessee is a \"co-operative bank\" and thus, was\nhit by the provisions of Section 80(P)(4) and was not entitled

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2): Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under section (1) of section 142, the assessing officer shall,- (i) Where he has reason to believe that nay claim of loss exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying part5iculars of such claim

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2): Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under section (1) of section 142, the assessing officer shall,- (i) Where he has reason to believe that nay claim of loss exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying part5iculars of such claim