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

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

section 40A(2) of the Act while proportionately disallowing the interest expenditure on account of interest free advances given by the assessee to the related partied and sister concerns. When the assessee is paying a huge amount on account of interest expenditure then the advances given to sister concerns and related parties amounting to Rs.155 Crores is not justified

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 disallowance of Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nis bad being vague, without proper reasons, purely ad-hoc\nand being based on one isolated finding in one branch i.e.\nKarkala in respect of Rs.1,80,000/-, particularly when the\nsaid figure appears to be a balancing figure in the offer of\nRs.60 Crores as extracted from the appellant under

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30-03-2019 by declaring total income of Rs 4,06,38,068/- with tax payable amount of Rs 1,84,24,220/-. The scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 08.11.2013, it would be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act only for and from Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned AR further contended that voluntary corpus donations received by the assessee for a specific purpose

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 08.11.2013, it would be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act only for and from Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned AR further contended that voluntary corpus donations received by the assessee for a specific purpose

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance under section 2 (24) (x) read with section 36 (1) disallowance under section 2 (24) (x) read with section

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances

THAMANNA ,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-2(1) , MYSORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Once the assessee had requested the AO to treat the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act as the return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, then the AO ought to have issued

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

24,728/- was incurred as project cost for project ‘Nirvana’ and the non submission of any documents pertaining to the project was in no way due to the fault of the assessee. 5.9 The Ld. AR submitted that M/s Metrocorp had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09 and M/s. Metrocorp Infrastructure