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)

2. The Learned AO erred in making the impugned\naddition 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

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

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

Section 14A. The Assessing Officer worked out the disallowance on account of indirect interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.34,23

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

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. It was submitted that the disallowance

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. 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

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 OF INTEREST EARNED FROM\nINVESTMENT u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d)\n15.1 In respect of the investments made by assessee from which\ninterest / dividend has been earned, assessee submitted that\ndeduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d) is available to assessee.\nThis issue arises in the following manner.\nPage 23 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023

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

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\nmembers

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

2 respectively without any witness.\n\n16.7.\nThe Learned AO erred in making the impugned\naddition of Rs.20,00,000/- without appreciating that the\nstatements of the Directors recorded in their residences\ncould not have been taken under Section 132(4).\n\nPage 23 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n16. 8. The Learned AO erred in making the impugned

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\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\nmembers

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\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\nmembers

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\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\nmembers

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

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\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.\n\n14.2 The Ld.AR submitted that interest earned from loans to\nstaff are attributable to its activities of lending monies

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\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\nmembers

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\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\nmembers

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

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

23 taxmann.com 319 (Mumbai), it was held as follows: 9. …………. The first proviso thus puts a rider only on the sixth category i.e. for "advancement of any other object of general public utility", that it will not be held to be charitable purpose if it involves the carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business