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

9). The assessment order was passed on 17.09.2022 by making total additions in the hands of the assessee as under: Nature of Additions made Amount (INR) Disallowance of deductions 29,53,200/- claimed u/s. 80E Disallowance of exemption 2,28,166/- claimed u/s. 10(13A) Total Additions 31,81,366/- The assessee accepted the additions made and the payment

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

9). The assessment order was passed on 17.09.2022 by making total additions in the hands of the assessee as under: Nature of Additions made Amount (INR) Disallowance of deductions 29,53,200/- claimed u/s. 80E Disallowance of exemption 2,28,166/- claimed u/s. 10(13A) Total Additions 31,81,366/- The assessee accepted the additions made and the payment

VDB INFRA AND REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenditure was made on an ad-hoc and estimate basis. The penalty proceedings were found to be procedurally flawed and lacked independent examination. The addition itself did not conclusively prove misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the assessee.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "270A", "270A(9

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

disallowance of employees\ncontribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported\nunder sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas\ndisallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The AO has passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) Disallowance of Depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,53,66,656/- and (b) disallowance of loss on sale of vehicles amounting to Rs.1

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9

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)

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n15.10.\nThe Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section 14A can be made

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

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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.

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n15. 10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n\n15.10.\nThe Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

M/S. VISTAAR FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance let alone under-reporting or misreporting. M/s. Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 13.3. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the case of denial of deduction claimed under section 80G does not fall within the scope of section 270A (8) r.w.s. 270A(9

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

disallowance of ₹ 74,951/-under section 24 of the Act representing the excessive interest claimed by the assessee. As per the AO, the income assessed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act represents the underreporting of income in pursuance to the provisions of section 270A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO proposed to levy the penalty under section

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

9 of 12 (b)where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c)in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula