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

22 2.1.2 In the set aside proceedings, the AO passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 25.03.2013, repeating the earlier disallowances under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

2 of the section 37(1) of the Act which clarifies that the\nexpenditure incurred by an assessee on the Corporate Social Responsibility shall not be\ndeemed to be an expenditure for the purpose of business or profession.\nvii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to by deleting addition of Rs.2,02,00,000/- made by the\nA.O

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)

22 to 25)\nReference\nCLI 3 – Pg.\n1774-1776\nCLI 3 – Pg.\n1778 – 1779\nCLI 3 –\nPg. 1800\n1803\nCLI 3 –\nPg. 1814 -\n1816\n5. 5. The assessment is bad without a valid notice under Section 143(2).\nReliance is placed on:\nCases\nHimalaya Drug Company [TS-992-HC-2021(KAR)],\n(para 15 – 20)\n[Revenue's SLP dismissed

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

22 to 25)\nReference\nCLI 3 – Pg.\n1774-1776\nCLI 3 – Pg.\n1778 – 1779\nCLI 3 –\nPg. 1800\n1803\nCLI 3 –\nPg. 1814 -\n1816\n5.5. The assessment is bad without a valid notice under Section 143(2).\nReliance is placed on:\nCases\nReference\nHimalaya Drug Company [TS-992-HC-2021(KAR)], | CLI 1 – Pg.18 -24\n(para

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 2(22)(e) of the Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 18 Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) , wherein it was held as follows:- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.A.Builders Vs. CIT" (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the context of expenditure

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

22. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 23. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO enhanced the business income by adding ₹ 1,15,39,244/- & ₹3,12,323/- to the returned income but failed to allow deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on such enhanced income

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

section 40A(2) and made a disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.16.41 Crores. 22. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) deleted

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for interest received from\nPage 4 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nCo-operative Banks, the AO did not make any separate disallowance

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.

2. The impugned addition of Rs.68,53,999/- by failing to appreciate that\nvaluation of stock on net basis consistently is revenue\nneutral as compared to gross basis and is sufficient\ncompliance with section 145A.\n14. 3. The Learned AO erred in making the aforesaid\naddition without rejecting the books of accounts\nmaintained by the Appellant.\nPage 22

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for interest received from\nPage 4 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nCo-operative Banks, the AO did not make any separate disallowance

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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 40A(3) on the basis of\nunsigned post-dated vouchers.\n\nPage 22 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n15. 17. Without prejudice to the Learned AO to appreciate\nthat even in case of any transaction disallowed under\nSection 40A(3), disallowance has to be restricted only to\nthe payment in excess of Rs.10,000/-.\n\n16. As regards

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance\nunder section 80P in respect of interest earned by the assessee\non staff loans. In the other appeals, the Ld.AO referred to interest\non staff loans to hold that the assessee was transacting with non-\nmember.\n14.2 The Ld.AR submitted that interest earned from loans to\nstaff are attributable to its activities of lending monies to its\nPage 22