R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowed under this section to the extent of 20%. If a claim is otherwise not allowable under the provisions of Section 28 to 37 of the Act then the question of applying this section does not arise. The provisions of Section 40A(3

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

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

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

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

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

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSORE vs. SRI K S HARISH,, MYSORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. This section must be read along with the Rule 6DD and if read together it is clear that the provisions of the section are not intended to restrict the business activities. It only empowers the assessing officer to disallow

TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act and disallowed the amount. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions and business expediency. However, disallowance was carried out purely on the violation of provisions of section

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) and accordingly disallowed the same. ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 AY Addition made

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) and accordingly disallowed the same. ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 AY Addition made

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) and accordingly disallowed the same. ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 AY Addition made

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) and accordingly disallowed the same. ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 AY Addition made

SRI KRISHNASA BHUTE ,HARIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, ITA No. 2444/Bang/18 is allowed, while ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance under clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

disallowance of truck hire charges of Rs. 39,49,171/- on account of alleged violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. 9.1 The AO during

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the AO was correct in disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,51,11,864/-u/s. 40A

M/S. UNITY INDUSTRIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K

section 40A(3) were clearly applicable to the appellant’s case and hence the two sums mentioned above were to be disallowed

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.

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3

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

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

3), the Assessing Officer has basically made disallowance under Section 14A on account of interest expenditure as well as on account of indirect expenditure apart from the disallowance made 40A