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 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search

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

section 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs. 17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs. 20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs. 23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs. 63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs. 70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based

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

31 of 38 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as per law if found that same is arising from the loan to the PCARD members. 18.4 Moving to the receipt of commission on e-stamping for Rs. 75,682/- only. At the outset, we note that the issue of eligibility of deduction under section 80P(2

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

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 in making the disallowance of interest expenditure. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 31

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 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7. The AO made the additions based on the results of the search

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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

31 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nas the Learned AO has obtained a single approval of\nthe JCIT Central Range vide letter\nF.No.26/Jt.CIT/CR/MNG/2021-22 dated 28.09.2021\ncontrary to the phrase “in respect of each\n assessment year” under Section 153D.\n\n2. It is submitted that the aforesaid grounds were\ninadvertently not raised in the appeal memorandum. The\naforesaid

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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 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. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

31-01-2024\nDate of Pronouncement : 29-04-2024\nORDER\nPER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nPresent appeals arise out of the following orders of the L.CIT(A)\npassed independently for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19\n& 2020-21. The details of the impugned orders are as under:\nPage 2 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal

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

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. 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