ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract in P &L account. Assessee was called to explain the claim. After going through the submission by assessee, the Ld.AO observed as under: “The company has involved

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract in P &L account. Assessee was called to explain the claim. After going through the submission by assessee, the Ld.AO observed as under: “The company has involved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract in P &L account. Assessee was called to explain the claim. After going through the submission by assessee, the Ld.AO observed as under: “The company has involved

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract in P &L account. Assessee was called to explain the claim. After going through the submission by assessee, the Ld.AO observed as under: “The company has involved

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract in P &L account. Assessee was called to explain the claim. After going through the submission by assessee, the Ld.AO observed as under: “The company has involved

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

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

40A(2) in respect of interest free advances given to the related parties. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said advances made by the assessee from its own funds and not from the interest bearing fund. As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

5 therefore, the same cannot be disallowed under the provisions of section 40A (3). In support of his contention he has relied

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)” in the said notice.\n15. 5

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

disallowance under section 40A(2), is misconceived. We, th refore, hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40A(2).” 6.3.3 We also find that the ITAT – Amritsar Bench in the case of Subhash Chander and Co., (2009) 31 SOT 11 (Amritsar) at paras 5

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

5. Thereafter, the Learned Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w. Section 143(3) for the AY 2015-16, has proceeded to issue a show cause notice dated 21-12- 2018 for the disallowance u/s 40A

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

5. Thereafter, the Learned Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w. Section 143(3) for the AY 2015-16, has proceeded to issue a show cause notice dated 21-12- 2018 for the disallowance u/s 40A

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

5. Thereafter, the Learned Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w. Section 143(3) for the AY 2015-16, has proceeded to issue a show cause notice dated 21-12- 2018 for the disallowance u/s 40A

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) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5

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) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5

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) shall not be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has grossly overlooked the following 5

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act, holding as under at para 5 of its order :- 5. Having regard

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

40A(2) of the Act and the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the AO with the direction to examine all aspects and pass a speaking order, whereas in the impugned AY, the disallowance was made under section 37 of the Act. The revenue has taken a contrary stand while making the disallowance in the different AY whereas

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

40A(2) of the Act and the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the AO with the direction to examine all aspects and pass a speaking order, whereas in the impugned AY, the disallowance was made under section 37 of the Act. The revenue has taken a contrary stand while making the disallowance in the different AY whereas

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

40A(2) of the Act and the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the AO with the direction to examine all aspects and pass a speaking order, whereas in the impugned AY, the disallowance was made under section 37 of the Act. The revenue has taken a contrary stand while making the disallowance in the different AY whereas