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.

32,15,180/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.18,70,77,582/-\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs.26,14,691/-\nd) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.53,61,903/-\n6. Insofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing the quantum of purchases of tendu

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

32,15,180/-\n\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.18,70,77,582/-\n\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs.26,14,691/-\n\nd) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.53,61,903/-\n\n6.\nInsofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\n\na) Disallowing

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

disallowance by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal also held that the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, concerning succession, was not applicable as there was no succession of the entire business. Therefore, depreciation on intangible assets was allowed. The issue of foreign tax paid as business expenditure was restored to the AO for fresh examination.", "result

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

2)(d). Accordingly, the assessment was\nconcluded on 22.09.2021 disallowing the deduction of Rs\n3,32,62,487/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80P of the IT Act.\n2. That appeal proceeding for the Assessment Year 2018-19 has\nbeen concluded by the Commissioner of Income Tax, National\nFaceless Appeal Centre on 24.09.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-\n18/10082339\nwith\nDIN

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

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing\nthe business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the same

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

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

2)(a)(i) of the Act of the Act. Hence the AO held that only 1.4% of deduction claimed . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 4 of 32 shall be disallowed i.e. Rs. 8,34,749/- * 1.4 = 11,686 was disallowed. But no separate addition was made for the reason that entire claim of Rs. 8,34,749/- under section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed