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

3 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n4.5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section_14A_r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n4.6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3,85,15,497/- for sponsoring cricketing events held during 2008 to ICC. The said amount was proposed to be disallowed by the AO in the Draft Assessment Order, for the following reasons: - (i) Similar expense has been disallowed in the earlier years as part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing

SHRI. BOREGOWDA RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

3\nITA No. 304/Bang/2024\n9. Principle of Natural Justice violated: The learned CIT(A)\npassed an order without providing sufficient opportunity,\nmore specifically the learned AO has passed an order even\nwithout serving any hearing notice, the matter was\ndismissed for non-response to clarification on column 8\nand 9, of form 35 on allegation of incomplete form

M/S. RAKSHA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act on 29.01.2016 making additions of Rs. 14,80,939/- on account of partial disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act and added this amount to the total income of the assessee bringing this amount to tax. The date of service of the assessment order and the demand notice on the assessee was effectuated

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A.” Also as per CBDT Notification No 3/2022, dated 16.07.22, filing of Form 68 is mandatorily

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A.” Also as per CBDT Notification No 3/2022, dated 16.07.22, filing of Form 68 is mandatorily

M/S DESAI & CO.,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 249[3] of the Act in the most judicious manner to promote and uphold the substantial cause of justice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without Prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not adjudicating all the grounds raised by the Appellant on merits which is in grave violation of principles

HEDDUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the claim under section 80AC of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B. 12.1 It is not in dispute that the assessee filed the return of income only after the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and that the return was filed belatedly. The explanation for such delay, as submitted

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

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

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

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

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

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition of share premium under Section 68 was justified when it represented a conversion of CCDs from a prior year. Whether the ad-hoc disallowance

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

3) of the Act determining a total loss at Rs.8,16,20,329. 5. Subsequently the case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 31.3.2021. The main reason for reopening of the assessment is that the International Taxation Officer forwarded information that assessee has made payment of Rs.49,17,872 during

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

3) of the Act determining a total loss at Rs.8,16,20,329. 5. Subsequently the case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 31.3.2021. The main reason for reopening of the assessment is that the International Taxation Officer forwarded information that assessee has made payment of Rs.49,17,872 during

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

3. The learned Addl.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the CPC is not justified in processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act and disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs.1,00,73,630/- under section 8oP of the Act without providing an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice under the facts

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction