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)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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.

B' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

b)(i) that the assessee had not deducted tax at source in respect of provisions created for expenses for the month of March and outstanding as on 31.03.2012. The total expenses quantified by the Auditor was Rs.36,14,498. Out of the year-end provisions of Rs.36,14,67,498 made in the books of accounts according to the assessee

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

B. Corporate Tax 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the 48,04,00,000 I.T.Act r.w.r 8D. 5. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1,40,46,63,276 6. Disallowance of payments for promotion 44,33,55,403 and advertisement expenses. 7. Disallowance based on Project Spirits 54,49,10,000 Report As a result

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

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

disallowing the claim made u/s 11 of the Act and u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act:- APMC Tarikere, Tarikere Page 6 of 9 APMC Tarikere, Tarikere Page 7 of 9 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

b) of the Act. It was submitted that the provisions of section 10AA(2) of the Act are applicable only for last 5 years of deduction out of total 15 years. As the year under consideration was the 2nd year of claim, this requirement is thereby not relevant in the present case. Therefore, this condition for denial of deduction under

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of\npenalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or\nsection 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been\ninitiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section\n270A.\n(4) The Assessing Officer shall, within

GSSS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowed the same on the reasoning\nthat the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by\nthe provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible\nfor claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. Finally, the issue\nreached the Hon'ble Apex Court where it was held that banking

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S IRUNWAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

4)(b) of the Indo US treaty while deciding the disallowance of sums paid to iRunway Inc., USA, will equally apply to this disallowance also, ie., the disallowance of payments made to Mr.Neeraj Gupta u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Mr.Neeraj Gupta was paid commission on the basis of sales orders procured. Merely because he was technically qualified, sales commission

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

b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or (c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable

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

b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or (c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable

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

Appeals is partly allowed for statistical purposes as in earlier orders of this Tribunal

249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour

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

b) of the Act, which remained unanswered. Hence, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28th March 2022 and initiated the reopening/reassessment proceedings under . Page 3 of 7 section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income declaring income

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment