M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance on account of interest expenditure under Section 14A in the earlier assessment year. Further, the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 07-08, while deciding the issue of interest free loans advanced to the related parties have given the finding that the assessee was having sufficient interest free funds. We further find that during the year under consideration

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

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed a sum of Rs.49,35,000/- under section 11(5) of the Act. 4.4 He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought not to have passed an ex-parte order and mere non- exercise of right to be heard by the assessee during the proceedings could not be reason enough for the Commissioner (Appeals

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

sections 115, 44AC, etc. (iii) The reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. ( supra) is misplaced since that case concerns allowance of losses on re-statement of existing currency assets and liabilities. In the case on hand, it relates only to future sales transactions without certainty of valuation

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

disallowance without providing an opportunity of being heard.” 2. The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no “sufficient cause” for filing appeal belatedly before him. As per the order of NFAC, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.6.2019 served

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 of 18 2.4 In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down principle for condoning the delay, wherein held that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cost of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section 37 is not applicable

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed on 28.01 .2016 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee filed the audit report before inclusion of the assessment and claimed the deduction of .58,45,894/-under section 801A of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the audit report and the revised claim of Page 10 of 29 ITA Nos. 755 to 757/Bang/2023

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with