MICROFINISH VALVES PVT LTD,HUBLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

section 2(22)(e) is to tax dividend in the hands of shareholder. The deeming provisions as it applies to the case of loans or advances by a company to a concern in which it’s shareholder has substantial interest, is based on the presumption that the loan or advances would ultimately be made available to the shareholders

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

E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and we ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 22 deem it appropriate to dispose them

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

E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and we ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 22 deem it appropriate to dispose them

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

E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and we ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 22 deem it appropriate to dispose them

MICROFINISH VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowances: (i)Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Rs.3,30,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) - Rs. 8,18,734/- (iii) Disallowance

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not be applicable. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suraj Dev Dada. 16. Turning to the fact of the case, we find that undisputedly the assessee maintained the current account with the company and the ITA Nos.1223/B/10

SURESH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ACIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

section 2(22)(e) of IT. Act, 1961. The expression "Accumulated Profits' was defined in the 1961 Act so as to include current profit upto the date of distribution or payment. ii) Accumulated Profits-How to be Computed The phrase accumulated profits" does not mean aggregate of assessed profits but commercial profits. If certain disbursement have been disallowed

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

e-stamping, commission on ITGI insurance premium etc. According to the ld. AR all such incomes are eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. . Page 13 of 38 11. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

e) Once a proximate cause for disallowance is established – which is the relationship of the expenditure with income which does not form part of the total income – a disallowance has to be effected. All expenditure under the provisions of the Act has to be disallowed under section 14A Income which does not form part of the total income is broadly

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

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

E R Per Chandra Poojari, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order of the CIT(A), Bangalore-6, dated 08.01.2018, and they relate to the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is opposed

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.

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 and 2020-21. The grounds raised by the assessee for\neach of the assessment years are extracted