BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

2)(iii). The submission of ld. counsel for the assessee is that this issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that if no dividend income was earned, section 14A couldnot be invoked. The Hon’ble Delhi High

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

disallows certain expenditure\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincome which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the tax. It is equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out, in order to attract applicability of section 14-A of the Act, there\nhas

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)

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\naccounts\n==End of OCR for page 27== ==Page 28

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

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18.1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\nclaim of the assessee and without examining the accounts\nof the appellant and without rejecting its books of account.\nPage 28

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

disallowances made on account of provision for doubtful debts and delayed deposit of employee . Page 37 of 38 welfare contributions merely result in enhancement of business income. The Ld. AR further contended that such enhanced income continues to be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision

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.

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\naccounts\nof the appellant and without rejecting its books of account.\nPage 28

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

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

disallowance under Section 14A on account of interest expenditure which has been deleted by the CIT (Appeals), the facts are almost identical except the fact that for the said assessment year the assessee has made an investment of Rs. 2 Crores in the sister concern namely Green Food Park Ltd. 27. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and learned

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\n\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\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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

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

28 to 38 deal\nwith different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B\nspell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for\nassessments and expressly prescribing conditions for\ndisallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too\nstarts with a nonobstante clause overriding Sections 30-38),\ndeals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under\nthe head

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/-\nclaimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of\nimprovement.\n2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the\nfollowing were noticed:\n• That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under\ncapital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of\nproperty situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under the\nRight