KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

3) of the Act. Against the said disallowance, the assessee\nis in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Further the present assessment\nproceeding is in pursuance to order under section 263 of the Act on the\nlimited issue of disallowances of expenses not actually paid. Hence, the\nAO disallowed the interest payable/provision of Rs.7,04,188/- and\nadded the same

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)

3. The Lower Authorities were not justified in\nmaking any disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule\n8D(2)(iii) without appreciating that disallowance under\nSection 14A cannot be made in the absence of any\nproximate cause i.e. relationship of expenditure with\nexempt income.\n15. 4

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

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.

3. The Lower Authorities were not justified in\nmaking any disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule\n8D(2)(ii) without appreciating that disallowance under\nSection 14A cannot be made in the absence of any\nproximate cause i.e. relationship of expenditure with\nexempt income.\n4. 4

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

3. The Lower Authorities were not justified in\nmaking any disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule\n8D(2)(iii) without appreciating that disallowance under\nSection 14A cannot be made in the absence of any\nproximate cause i.e. relationship of expenditure with\nexempt income.\n\n15. 4

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

4) dated\n26.02.2020 of Mr. Srinivas Acharya, Manager of Karkala\nBranch when the same was administered by ADIT(Inv.)\nMysuru without any witness.\n15.13. Without prejudice to the above, even if the\nimpugned disallowance was taken to be under Section\n40A(3

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

disallowances made on the merits. However, the learned\nCIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeals on both the counts.\n7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee\nis in appeal before us.\n8. Before us, the assessee has raised the issue of assessment order\nbeing barred by time and consequently argued that the assessment\norder

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

disallowable under the said provision on account of contravention. The only instances, without prejudice to ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 23 the contention that there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 40A(3)in respect of such instances too, observed by the Learned Assessing Officer to contend that there is a payment in excess

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

disallowable under the said provision on account of contravention. The only instances, without prejudice to ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 23 the contention that there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 40A(3)in respect of such instances too, observed by the Learned Assessing Officer to contend that there is a payment in excess

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

disallowable under the said provision on account of contravention. The only instances, without prejudice to ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 23 the contention that there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 40A(3)in respect of such instances too, observed by the Learned Assessing Officer to contend that there is a payment in excess

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

sections 72(1), 73(2), 73A(2), 74(1) or (3) and 74A(3) and 80 of the Act were relied on by the Ld.AR and contended that the losses in respect of the previous years could be set off against the current Page 4 of 14 years profits when the assessee had filed their return of income

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40A(3) of the Act. Hence the AO disallowed sum of\nRs. 12,73,300/- claimed towards building materials and labour charges.\n22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the\ndisallowance made by the AO by observing as under:\n4.4 Ground of Appeal No. 4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned any exempt income in a particular year" 3. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the brand building expenditure incurred by the assessee the expenditure cannot be considered as a revenue expenditure since it indirectly gives the assessee benefit for a long run. 4

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

4), Bengaluru under the provisions of section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the act is opposed to the facts of the case and law applicable to it. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

4), Bengaluru under the provisions of section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the act is opposed to the facts of the case and law applicable to it. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the disallowance

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

disallowance of expenditure incurred on subscription charges amounting to Rs. 3,18,52,696 and Rs. 1,08,79,768 under section 40(a)(i) which was paid / payable to M/s Forrester Research and M/s Gartner respectively. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, no 4